J  V 

6754 


UC-NRLF 


Eflfl 


SEflBBSSPftSsTS 

• 


CNJ 
00 

o 
o 

o 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


THE 


€UENCE    OF    FRENCH    IMMIGRATION 


ON  THE 


LITICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


[A  Tl.  esis  for  the  Doctor's  Degree,  University  of  Minnesota.] 


BY  ELIZABETH  H,  AVERY, 


N 


REDFIELD.     S.     O. 


THE 


INFLUENCE  OF  FRENCH  IMMIGRATION 


ON  THE 


POLITICAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


[A  Tln-sh  tor  the  Doctor's  Degree,   University  of  Miniuvsoia.  | 


BY  ELIZABETH  H,  AVERY, 


PREFATORY  NOTE. 

investigation  of  which  the  results  are  herewith  pre- 
scnted  was  begun  writh  the  thought  of  preparing  a  paper 
for  the  Seminary  of  American  History  in  the  University 
of  Minnesota.  A  very  brief  survey  sufficed  to  show  that  here 
was  a  field,  practically  unworked,  intensly  fascinating,  and  of 
no  small  importance.  The  study  was  therefore  continued  and 
the  paper  was  expanded  to  the  present  limits. 

At  no  stage  of  the  research,  have  I  consciously  labored  to 
establish  a  pre-conceived  theory.  Indeed,  in  the  main,  the  re- 
sults reached  are  far  other  than  I  should  have  anticipated. 
The  conclusions  of  a  first  effort  in  a  new  field  are  necessarily 
somewhat  tentative,  and  I  shall  be  quite  satisfied  if  the  results 
of  this  study  shall  lead  others,  better  equipped,  to  continue  the 
investigation,  whether  the  final  results  agree  with  those 
here  reached  or  not. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  formerly  accepted  theory  that  American  institutions  are 
almost  exclusively  of  Anglo-Saxon  origin,  has  of  late  been  vig- 
orously attacked.  In  particular,  large  claims  to  a  share  in  the 
honor  of  building  the  American  nation  have  been  asserted  on 
behalf  of  the  Dutch.1  Whatever  the  final  judgment  of  sober 
historical  criticism  on  such  claims  may  be,  it  is  evident  that 
much  is  to  be  gained  by  careful  study  of  the  influence  of  other 
than  English-speaking  peoples  on  the  origin  and  development 
of  our  institutions.  Such  a  study  in  regard  to  the  early  French 
settlers  will  be  attempted  in  this  paper. 

At  the  outset  we  are  confronted  by  the  fact  that,  in  the  main, 
these  settlers  fall  into  two  groups:  the  French  Protestants, 
mostly  refuges  from  persecution  at  home,  who  came  to  the  At- 
lantic colonies;  and  the  French  Catholics,  who,  coming  for 
purposes  of  traffic  or  sent  by  a  paternal  government,  founded 
settlements  in  the  "old  Northwest"  and  the  Mississippi  valley. 
For  clearness  of  treatment,  it  seems  best  to  study  separately 
the  effect  of  these  two  streams  of  immigration,  and  then  to 
compare  their  influence. 

'Especially  in  Douglas  Campbell's  work,  "The  Puritan  in  England. 
Holland,  and  America.  W.  E.  Gritfis.  al-o.  asserts  that  we  -borrowed 
from  the  Netherlands,  "in  germ  or  directly,''  eighteen  features  of  our 
government.  Among  them  are  the  separation  of  church  and  state,  free- 
dom of  the  press,  freedom  of  religion,  the  supreme  court,  the  common 

'1  system,  etc.     See  National  Magazine,  vol.  XV..  p.  603. 


I.     HUGUENOTS. 

I.      HUGUENOT   SETTLEMENTS. 

»jr^UGUENOT  immigration  to  this  country  began  at  a  very 
nj    early  period.     It  would,  however,  be  quite   beside   my 
present  purpose   to  relate   the   story   of    the    ill-fated 
colonies  sent  out  by  Coligny,  or  even  to  give  in  detail  the  ac- 
counts of  more  successful  undertakings  in  later  years.     I  shall 
attempt  only  a  brief  summary,  in  the  order  of  colonies  rather 
than  in  chronological  order,  of  the  settlements  made  by  them 
in  the  United  States. 

It  appears  that  while  the  Pilgrims  tarried  inLeyden,  friend- 
ly relations  sprang  up  between  them  and  some  of  the  French 
refugees  who  were  also  settled  there,  for  the  Mayflower 
brought  among  its  passengers  certain  Huguenots,  Philip  De- 
lanoy  and  Wm.  Molines  with  his  wife,  son,  and  daughter,1  the 
latter  of  whom  has  been  immortalized  by  one  of  her  own  de- 
scendants as  the  "Puritan  maiden  Priscilla"  Mullins. 

In  1662,  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  granted  to 
John  Teuton,  a  physician  of  Rochelle,  and  other  French  Pro- 
testants expelled  on  account  of  their  faith,  permission  to  settle 
in  the  colony.2  Within  the  next  quarter  of  a  century  these 
were  followed  by  quite  a  large  number  of  their  countrymen. 
Soon  after  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  the  proprie- 
tors of  a  tract  of  land  in  the  Nipmuck  country  invited  some 
thirty  of  them  thither  and  made  them  a  grant  of  eleven  or 
twelve  thousand  acres.  The  village  of  Oxford  which  they 
founded  flourished  for  a  time  but  was  abandoned  in  1704  on  ac- 


M.  C.  Hotten.  Original  Lists  of  Emigrants  to  America,  Introduction, 
p.  XXV..  and  C.  W.  Baird,  Huguenot  Emigration  to  America,  I.,  154 
and  158.  All  the  Molines  family  except  the  daughter  died  during  the 
first  winter. 

2Mass.  Col.  Rrcords.  vol.  IV..  part  II..  p.  67.  See  also,  Memorial  Hist, 
of  Boston.  II..  i:.")i).  WJHMV  it  is  stated  that  Touton  came  over  in  1675  and 
that  the  first  considerable  company  came  in  1686.  Cites  MS.  copy 
of  Council  Records  in  the  office  of  Sec.  of  State,  p.  :>2. 


12 

count  of  Indian  massacres,  the  inhabitants   going   to   Boston 
and  other  places.1 

Some  forty  or  fifty  families  made  a  settlement,  which  they 
called  Frenchtown,  in  East  Greenwich,  Rhode  Island,  in  the 
autumn  of  1686.  Owing  to  disputes  about  land  titles,  these 
settlers  were  afterwards  scattered  over  the  Narragansett 
country.  After  the  Revolution  many  of  them  moved  to  Ver- 
mont, New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  thence  farther  west.2 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  and  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  Connecticut  received  a  small  accession 
of  Huguenots  who  located  mostly  in  Milford  and  Hartford.3 

Huguenot  settlements  were  made  in  New  York  earlier  than 
elsewhere.  Indeed  there  is  evidence  that  the  first  white  child 
born  in  that  region,  in  1614  or  1615,  was  of  Huguenot  parent- 
age.4 In  1623,  a  Dutch  ship  brought  over  nearly  thirty  Wal- 
loon families,  some  of  whom  settled  on  Manhattan  Island, 
others  near  the  present  site  of  Philadelphia,  and  still  others  at 
Fort  Orange — now  Albany.  There  was  considerable  desultory 
migration  before  the  Revocation  and  settlements  were  formed 
on  both  Staten  Island  and  Long  Island.5 

In  1677,  several  families  from  the  Palatinate  located  west  of 
the  Hudson  and  in  grateful  commemoration  of  their  previous 
place  of  refuge  called  their  village  New  Paltz.6 

New  Rochellej  Westchester  Co.,  was  settled  in  1689,  the  land 

'Daniels.  Hist,  of  Oxford,  p.  19;  Mass.  Hist.  Coll.  vol.  XXII.,  p.  29;  C. 
W.  Baird  gives  lists  of  French  settlers  in  Mass,  from  a  variety  of  origi- 
nal sources. 

'Baird,  II.,  291,  ff.;  Potter,  History  of  French  Settlements  and  Settlers 
in  Khode  Island,  pp.  17,  18,  88,  and  89.  This  little  book  contains  copies 
of  original  documents  and  is  very  valuable  for  the  study  of  this  settle- 
ment. 

3Huguenot  Emigration  to  America,  II.,  330.  ff.  The  authorities  seem 
to  be  genealogical  records. 

•Memorial  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I.,  144,  145:  Coll.  of  Huguenot  Soc.  of  N.  Y., 
I.,  Introd.,p.  X.  and  footnote.  Both  refer  to  the  Journal  of  Labadist 
voyagers,  Dankers  and  Sluyter,  whose  date  was  about  1679. 

*Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  III.,  35;  Huguenot  Emigration  to  America, 
I.,  170;  Coll.  of  Huguenot  Soc.,  L.  Introd.  pp.  XIV.  and  XV. 

6Coll.  of  Ulster  Hist,  Soc.  vol.  I.  part  I.  p.  34.  There  had  been  Wal- 
loon settlers  in  that  region  previously.  See  Huguenot  Coll.  L,  introd. 
XIV.  The  Walloons  were  people  of  French  extraction  living  in  the  re- 
gion now  comprised  in  the  department  dn  Nord  and  the  S.  W.  provinces 
of  Belgium.  The  Protestants  among  them  were  practically  Huguenots. 
See  Huguenot  Emigration  to  America,  I.,  149-151  and  Huguenot  Coll.,  I. 
Introd  X.,  footnote. 


13 

having  been  purchased  from  Leister.  The  settlers  were  from 
the  city  which  figures  so  largely  in  Huguenot  history.1 

Many  refugees  who  went  first  to  the  West  Indies  came  thence 
to  New  York.- 

Individual  families  located  here  and  there  in  New  Jersey— a 
little  group  of  them  near  Princeton— but  the  first  and  probably 
the  only  settlement  looking  to  permanence  was  that  on  the 
Hackensack.  This  was  begun  in  1677  under  the  leadership  of 
David  Demarest.  a  native  of  Picardy,  who  on  coming  to  Ameri- 
ca first  joined  a  Huguenot  colony  on  Staten  Island  and  later 
was  a  prominent  citizen  of  New  Harlem.  The  colony  pros- 
pered, tract  after  tract  of  land  was  added,  and  before  the  Revo- 
lution it  sent  emigrants  to  Western  New  York,  to  Adams  Co., 
Pennsylvania,  and  to  Harrod's  Station,  Kentucky.3 

French  immigrants  came  also  to  Delaware,  to  Berks  Co., 
Pennsylvania,  possibly  to  Maryland,  and  in  much  larger  num- 
bers to  Virginia.4  Some  came  to  the  latter  colony  as  early  as 
1660,  perhaps  earlier.  Between  1690  and  1700,  the  arrivals 
amounted  in  all  to  '-"00  or  800  men,  women,  and  children,  who 
had  fled  from  France  on  account  of  their  religion."  Their 
principal  settlement  was  at  Manakintown,  about  twenty  miles 
above  the  falls  of  the  James  River.  From  this  place  many  of 
them  moved  to  more  desirable  lands  on  the  Trent  River  in 
North  Carolina.5 

Charles  II.  sent  a  colony  of  French  Protestants  at  his  own 
expense  to  South  Carolina  in  1679.  During  the  reign  of  James 

'Doc.  Hist,  of  N.  Y..  III..  9.V>.  ff.  C  W.  Baird  has  an  interesting  note 
in  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist..  II..  493.  It'.,  in  which  he  argues  that  Leisler  was  a 
Huguenot  and  hence  especially  interested  in  locating  these  families. 
Cf.  on  this  point  Huguenot  Coll.,  I.  Introcl..  XXVI..  footnote  and  the 
references  there  given. 

2N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IX.?  309. 

3These  and  other  interesting  particulars  may  be  found  in  "The  Hu- 
guenots on  the  Hackensack."  an  address  delivered  before  the  Huguenot 
Soc.  by  Rev.  Dr.  Demarest.  a  descendant  of  the  founder.  It  is  published 
in  Vol.  I.  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Soc.  and  also  separately  in  pamphlet 
form. 

*Huguenot  Coll.  I..  XI V..  Huguenot  Emigration  to  America,  I..  133, 
ff..  Rupp,  Thirty  Thousand  Names  of  Emigrants  to  Perm.,  pp.  XVI.  and 
XVIII..  and  Talrott  (Jen.  Notes  of  X.  V.  and  New  Eng.,  xn. 

'The  introduction  to  vol.  V.  of  the  Va.  Hist.  Coll.  states  that   the 

names  of  record  in  the  State  Land  Registry  indicate  desultory  Walloon 

immigration  early  in  the  17th  centurv.     S<ie  also  Mead,  Old   Churches 

and  Families  of  Va..   I..  4(>3,  ff.;  Bupp,  3<>±  C.  L.  Hunter.  Sketches  of 

I'M  N.  Car..  <>:  and  Beverly.  Histoire  De  la  Virginie,  188,  ff.  and380,ff. 


14 

II.,  collections  were  made  for  them  in  England,  Parliament  at 
one  time  granting  them  aid.  Their  early  settlements  were 
chiefly  near  the  Santee  and  Cooper  rivers.  In  1730  the  Purys- 
burg  settlement  was  made.  In  1761  the  Assembly  of  the  colo- 
ny passed  an  act  for  encouraging  foreign  Protestants  to  settle 
there,  which  had  the  effect  to  bring  over  six  hundred  persons 
in  about  three  years.  The  Abbeville  District  seems  to  have 
been  settled  by  these  later  comers.1 

\  Besides  these  more  important  settlements  to  which  I  have 
called  attention,  there  were  separate  families  or  small  groups 
of  families  who  came  over  at  various  times.  The  Huguenot 
Society  of  America  recognizes  fourteen  "original  settlements." 
New  York  City,  Staten  Island,  .Long  Island,  New  Rochelle, 

^  New  Paltz,  Boston,  New  Oxford,  Narragansetts,  Maine,  Dela- 
ware, Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  South  Carolina,  and  Florida.  As 
I  have  shown,  nearly  all  the  thirteen  colonies  received,  at  some 
time  before  the  Revolution,  at  least  a  few  Huguenot  settlers. 

It  is  probably  impossible  to  ascertain  with  any  approach  to 
accuracy  how  large  a  part  of  the  population  they  formed.  Pal- 
frey says  that  one  hundred  and  fifty  families  came  to  New  Eng- 
iand  after  the  Revocation,  and  Baird  considers  this  estimate 
too  low.2  Moreover  there  had  been  considerable  immigration 
to  that  colony  at  an  earlier  date,  as  we  have  seen.  One  writer 
holds  that  the  number  who  came  before  the  Revocation  was 
much  greater  than  has  been  supposed,  and  estimates  chat  in 
1670  the  Huguenots  were  one-fourth  the  population  of  New 
York.  Another  states  that  17,000  has  been  mentioned  as  a 
probable  number  in  South  Carolina.3  And  the  historian  of 
those  who  settled  on  the  Hackensack  says:  "Historians  *  * 
know  nothing  of  a  Huguenot  element  as  a  factor  of  any  impor- 
tance" in  New  Jersey.  ''But  suppose  that  you  were  today  to 
remove  *  *  all  who  bear  the  names  of  the  original  Hugue- 
not settlers  on  the  Hackensack,  and  of  those  who  soon  after 
located  in  the  neighborhood  *  *  you  would  vacate  a  very 

1Transictions  of  the  Hujusnot  Soe.  of  S.  Car.,  I.,  10,  12,  15,  II.,  55, 
III.,  65  and  66:  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  XXII,  35;  S.  Car.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll. 
I.,  100,  ftV(The  French  Protestants  of  the  Abbeville  District);  Holmes, 
Annals,  I.,  394,  453,  460,  472,  and  489;  and  Lee,  Huguenots  in  France  and 
America,  II.,  72  and  73. 

"Palfrey,  Hist,  of  New  Eng., I., preface  p.  VIII.:  C.  W.  Baird,  II.,  202. 

"See  Mag.  Am.  Hist.  IX.,  295,  (an  article  by  Rev.  A.  V.  Wittmeyer, 
rector  of  the  French  church  Saint  Esprit);  and  Trans.  Huguenot  Soc.  S. 
Car.,  III.  37. 


15 

large  proportion  of  the  houses  and  farms  in  an  extensive  dis- 
trict. And  if,  in  addition,  you  were  to  remove  all  who,  though 
bearing  Dutch  names,  have  quite  as  much  French  as  Dutch 
blood  in  their  veins,  you  would  create  a  wilderness  almost 
without  inhabitants."  *  *  *  * 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  such  estimates,  the  indications 
are  that  they  were  a  larger  element  of  the  colonial  population 
than  we  are  accustomed  to  think.  At  all  events  they  were 
sufficiently  numerous  to  make  it  a  matter  of  interest  and  im- 
portance to  determine  how  far  and  in  what  ways  they  in- 
fluenced national  development. 

A  people  so  industrious,  thrifty,  and  religious  would  be  ex- 
pected to  have  a  beneficial  influence  upon  the   economic   and  / 
moral  life  of  the  colonies,    and   the   course   of  contemporary 
evidence  as  well  as  the  results  of  later  investigations  point  in  j 
that  direction.     It  is  quite  likely,  as  suggested  by  some  wri- 
ters, that  their  more  genial  type  of  piety  may  have  softened 
somewhat  the  sternness  of  their   Puritan   neighbors   in   New 
England.     And  it  is  at  least  possible  thatlthe  milder  character 
of  the  Pilgrims  was  in  part  due  to  their  friendly  intercourse 
with  the  Huguenots  in  Leyden.     These  "men  who  had  the  vir1 
tues  of  the  English  Puritans  without  their  bigotry,"  "so  far  as 
we  can  learn,  brought  only  good  gifts  to  the  American  colo-i 
nies,"  and  "it  seems  very  probable   tha^Jmuch   of  American 
quickness  and  vivacity  is  due  to  the  early  and  wide-spread  dif-*/ 
fusion  of  Huguenot  blood."1 

Some  of  them  made,  if  not  more  substantial,  at  least  more 
tangible  gifts  to  the  homes  of  their  adoption,  from  the  city 
clock  given  in  1716  by  Stephen  Delancey  to  Trinity  church 
New  York,  to  Gabriel  Manigault's  loan  of  $220,000  at  the  out- 
set of  the  Revolution.2  The  most  widely  known  of  these  gifts 
is,  of  course,  the  "Cradle  of  Liberty,"  donated  by  Peter 
Faneuil  to  the  city  of  Boston.3 

'The  quotations  are  from  Bancroft,  Hist,  of  the  U.  S..  I.,  433,  and 
from  a  review  of  Baird's  work  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  LV.,  843,  ff.  Elo- 
quent tributes  to  their  virtues  may  be  found  in  the  Bi-Centenary  Com- 
memoration. See  especially  Pres.  Jay's  address,  p.  7,  ff.,  and  Prof.  H.  M. 
Baird's.  p.  14,  ff.  Pp.  37  and  ff.  give  Prof.  Baird's  estimate  of  their  influ- 
ence on  American  life. 

'Holgate,  Am.  Genealogy,  115:  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  XXII..  36. 

!A  copy  of  the  warrant  for  the  town  meeting  to  consider  his  offer  is  in 
New  Eng*  Hist,  and  Gen.  Reg.  XXX.,  368.  See  also  Mem.  Hist,  of  Bos- 
ton, I.,  263,  ff. 


16 

That  as  thrifty  inhabitants  they  were  gladly  welcomed  is  in- 
dicated by  the  pecuniary  aid  granted  to  them  in  South  Caro- 
lina, the  exemption  from  taxes  for  a  period  of  seven  years  in 
Virginia,1  and  by  the  general  tenor  of  contemporary  reference 
to  them.  But  they  were  not,  in  most  of  the  colonies,  at  once 
admitted  to  full  political  rights,  and  in  some  cases  there  was 
evident  jealousy  of  them  as  a  people  of  alien  nationality.  In 
Rhode  Island  at  the  outbreak  of  King  William's  war,  such  ap- 
prehensions of  their  taking  part  with  the  French  were  felt  that 
they  were  required  to  appear  before  a  magistrate  and  take  oath 
"to  behave  themselves."2  In  South  Carolina  during  Ludwell's 
administration,  feeling  ran  so  high  that  he  thought  it  neces- 
sary for  the  preservation  of  peace  to  exclude  the  Huguenots 
from  all  legislative  concerns,  since  "the  haughty  spirit  (of  the 
English)  could  not  brook  the  thought  of  sitting  in  assemblies 
with  the  rivals  of  the  English  nation  for  power  and  dominion, 
and  of  receiving  laws  from  Frenchmen,  the  favorers  of,  a  sys- 
tem of  absolute  government."3  It  is  said  also  that  some  went 
so  far  as  to  insist  that  marriages  by  French  ministers  were  il- 
legal. But  in  time  these  disturbances  quieted  down,  a  naturali- 
zation law  was  passed^ and  intermarriages  took  place.4 

Special  acts  of  naturalization  and  "denization"  were  also 
passed  in  other  colonies,5  and  we  find  frequent  mention  of 
Huguenots  in  official  positions.6  But  with  one  possible  excep- 
tion,7 I  can  find  no  evidence  that  they  ever  unitedly  exerted 

JVa.  Hist.  Coll.,  V.,  60. 

"Rhode  Island  Col.  Records.  III.,  264. 

•Hewitt,  Histi  Acc't  of  S.  Car.  and  Geo.  (originally  published  in  Lon- 
don, 1779),  in  S.  Car.  Hist.  Coll.  vol.  I.,  Hildreth,  II.,  210,  says  that  in 
Sothel's  time  a  law  was  passed  for  the  enfranchisement  of  Huguenots 
but  was  one  of  those  rejected  in  mass  by  the  proprietors  as  lacking  legal 
sanctions;  and  their  increasing  numbers  caused  the  trouble  in  Ludwell's 
time. 

*Lee,  Huguenots  in  France  and  America,  II.,  74,  75,  and  77;  Hildreth. 
II.,  213;  Bancroft,  II.,  12. 

6The  date  in  Mel.  was  1666;  .in  Ya.,  1671;  Holmes,  Annals,  I.,  344  and 
357.  Denization  was  granted  in  N.  Y.  as  early  as  1698,  possibly  earlier. 
Cf.  N.  Y.  Col.  Doc.,  IV.,  450,  III.,  426.  Penizaticn,  however,  did  not 
confer  full  political  rights,  (Huguenot  Coll.,  I.,  408),  and  perhaps  some 
confusion  of  these  laws  with  those  for  naturalization  may  explain  the 
discrepancies  in  the  date  as  given  by  different  writers. 

"Daniels,  Hist,  of  Oxford.  Mass.,  pr»-  12  and  757;  Huguenots  on  the 
Hackensack,  p.  0:  Mass.  Hist.  Coll.,  XXII.,  30:  and  Mem.  Hist,  of  N.  Y., 
II.,  49,  ff.  This  last  is  a  list  of  the  Mayors  of  N.  Y.  down  to  1700,  several 
of  whom  were  plainly  of  French  extraction. 

7This  exception  was  the  Leisler  difficulty  in  N.  Y.    Prominent  Hug- 


17 

any  political  influence  during  the  whole  colonial  period;  nor  do 
individuals  of  the  race  seem  to.  have  played  so  prominent  a 
part  as  in  later  hisjtory.  Yet  further,  it  does  not  appear  that 
in  any  way  they  made  definite,  original  contributions  to  politi- 
cal thought  in  those  times.  Whatever  effect  they  may  have  had 
upon  colonial  life,  politically  considered,  is  for  the  most  part, 
untraceable. 

Nor  need  this  surprise  us.  They  had  not  the  training  in  that 
self-government  which  has  so  characterized  the  Teutonic  peo- 
ples. Their  anomalous  "state  within  a  state"  had  long  since 
ceased  to  have  any  vitality,  and  in  its  best  days  was  rather 
imitative  than  original.  They  seem  never  to  have  acquired,  as 
a  people,  a  stock  of  political  ideas,  but  probably  'experienced 
in  their  thinking  upon  such  subjects — though  possibly  in  a 
somewhat  less  degree  than  their  fellow-countrymen— 'the  para- 
lyzing influence  of  the  French  system  of  centralization.  Com- 
ing then,  as  they  did,  solely  to  escape  persecution,  and  settling 
among  a  people  who  felt  entirely  competent  to  solve  all  polifi- 
cal  pi;oblens,  they  were  not  likely  to  be  important  factors  in 
political  development  till  they  had  become  somewhat  assimi- 
lated to  the  rest  of  the  population.  By  the  beginning  of  the 
Revolutionary  period  this  assimilation  was  quite  complete. 
And  I  propose  to  show  that  during  that  period  and  later  indi- 
viduals of  French  descent  did  much  to  shape  the  course  of  our 
national  history.  It  must,  however,  be  premised  at  the  outset 
that  the  very  completeness  of  their  absorption  by  the  people 
among  whom  they  settled  renders  it  impossible  to  trace  fully 
their  influence.  By  the  translation  of  their  names  into  Eng- 
lish, by  the  gradual  corruption  of  names  through  mispronunci- 
ation, and  by  intermarriages  the  lineage  has  been  so  obscured 
that  many  a  man  with  a  pretty  large  infusion  of  Huguenot 
blood  may  pass  for  a  full  blooded  Yankee  or  Dutchman.1 


ueoots  were  active  in  tlie  affair  and  a  majority  of  those  in  and  around 
N.  Y.  petitioned  for  Leisler's  pardon.  They  seem.  too.  to  Iiav7e  acted 
unitedly,  though  without  absolute  unanimity.  Nicholas  Bayard  was 
one  of  the  opposition.  See  Huguenot  Coll..  I..  Introd.,  XXVIII.:  Mem. 
Hist,  of  X.  V..  I.,  chap.  XII.  (The  period  of  the  Leisler  troubles  ):  and 
II.,  chaps.  1.  and  II.:  Doc.  of  Col.  Hist,  of  X.  Y..  IV.,  5>7ii  and  1064. 

'••The  French  element  was  so  speedily  absorbed  by  the  surrounding 
Dutch,  that  not  a  few  of  the  numerous  descendants  of  the  Huguenot 
pioneers,  from  whom  the  farms  they  occupy  have  comedown  in  unbroken 
nt  through  seveD  or  eight  generations,  verily  believe  that  they  are 
of  pure  Holland  st:ick.  a»:d  the  story  of  their  French  origin  is  to  them  a 
new  revelation."  Huguenots  on  the  Hackensack.  pp.  1  and  -2. 


II.     THE  REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD. 

COMING  now  to  the  times  immediately  preceding  the  Revolu- 
tion, it  would  be  easy  to  compile  from  Force's  Archives  a 
list  of  men  of  undoubted  French  ancestry  who  belonged  to 
committees,  wrote  letters,  and  in  various  other  ways  took  part 
in  the  proceedings  recorded  in  those  facinating  volumes.1 
From  other  sources,  too,  many  interesting  particulars  may  be 
gleaned.  At  least  one  Huguenot2  was  a  member  of  the  Boston 
tea  party,  and  another  was  one  of  those  Americans  in  England 
who  signed  the  petition  to  Parliament  representing  the  possible 
fa^tal  consequences  of  the  Boston  Port  Bill.3  Nor  can  we  for- 
get that,  when  it  came  to  actual  hostilities,  the  country  was 
indebted  to  a  Huguenot  for  the  "midnight  ride"  which  carried 
the  news  of  the  British  march  on  Lexington;4  nor  that  Francis 
Marion,  the  hero  of  so  many  gallant  exploits  as  well  as  the 
sturdy  defender  of  the  Tories  against  those  who  desired  to 
proscribe  them,5  and  John  Laurens,  whose  brave  conduct  won 
him  the  honor  of  receiving  the  sword  of  Cornwallis,  were 
Huguenots. 

But  time  does  not  permit  us  to  dwell  on  such  details, 
intensely  fascinating  as  they  are,  in  presence  of  the  much  more 

besides  those  better  known,  there  are  such  names  as  Legare, 
Bouquet,  Dubois,  Hasbrouck,  Bounetheau.  De  Saussure,  etc. 

2Goss'  Life  of  Col.  Paul  Revere,  I.,  121.  See  App.  to  this  paper  for 
genealogical  notes  on  Revere  and  other  prominent  Huguenots  referred  to. 

3Henry  Laurens,  Hist.  Mag.;  X.,  234. 

4This  was  not  the  only  ride  taken  by  the  '-patriot  Mercury"  for  his 
country.  In  1774  he  carried  to  N.  Y.  and  Phil,  the  dispatches  in  regard 
U)  calling  a  Congress,  and  on  several  occasions  took  messages  to  Congress. 
He  was  one  of  the  grand  jury  that  refused  to  serve  when  Parliament 
made  judges  independent  of  the  people.  Goss,  I.,  153  and  159.  ff.;  Mag. 
Am.  Hist.,  XV..  5. 

8He  declared  that  the  proposed  law  for  the  sequestration  of  the 
Tories  was  riot  in  "the  spirit  of  American  liberty."  See  Huguenot  pro- 
ceedings, I..  101.  Congress  voted  him  thanks  for  his  ''wise,  decided  and 
gallant  conduct  in  defending  the  liberties  of  his  country,  his  prudent 
and  intrepid  attack  on  a  party  of  British  troops  on  the  31st  of  Aug.  last, 
and  for  the  distinguished  part  he  took  in  the  battle  of  the  8th  of  Sep." 
Jour,  of  Cong.,  III.,  683. 


19 

important  deeds  of  a  group  of  statesmen  who  profoundly 
influenced  state  and  national  development  during  the  "critical" 
and  "formative"  period.  Their  work  may  perhaps  best 
be  seen  by  reviewing,  rapidly  and  with  special  reference  to  the 
part  taken  by  these  men  of  French  descent,  some  of  the  best 
known  events  of  our  history. 

It  need  detract  nothing  from  the  honor  we  are  accustomed 
to  pay  to  those  uncompromising  Yankee  rebels,  Samuel  Adams 
and  James  Otis,  to  recall  another,  a  man  of  Huguenot  ancestry, 
whose  share  in  the  events  that  precipitated  the  Revolution  was 
not  less  important  than  theirs,  though  his  name  has  been  suf- 
fered to  become  less  familiar  to  our  ears.  Says  Winthrop:  "If 
Otis'  arguments  **  breathed  into  this  nation  the  breath  of  life, 
few  things,  if  anything,  *  *  did  more  to  sustain  that  life  until  it 
was  able  to  go  alone,  than  the  answers  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  Massachusetts,  to  the  insolent  assumptions  of 
Bernard  and  Hutchinson,  mainly  draftad  by  the  same  James 
Otis  and  Samuel  Adams,  and  the  answers  of  the  Council, 
mainly  drafted  by  James  Bowdoin."  Bowdoin  was  under- 
stood by  the  Privy  Council  in  England  to  be  "the  leader  and 
manager  of  the  Council  in  Massachusetts,  as  Mr.  Adams  was  in 
the  House."1  Nor  is  contemporary  evidence  to  the  same 
effect  wanting.  Hutchinson  says:  "Mr.  Bowdoin  was  without  a 
rival  in  the  Council,  and  by  the  harmony  and  reciprocal  commu- 
nications between  him  and  Mr.  Adams,  the  measures  of  the  Coun- 
cil and  House  harmonized  also,  and  were  made  reciprocally  sub- 
servient each  to  the  other,  so  that  when  the  Governor  met  wTith 
opposition  from  the  one,  he  had  reason  to  expect  like  opposi- 
tion from  the  other."2  In  1774,  Hutchinson's  successor,  Gage, 
removed  him,  acting,  as  he  said,  under  "express  orders  from 
his  Majesty."  When  Gage  called  for  the  surrender  of  arms, 
Bowdoin  wras  moderator  of  the  great  meeting  held  in  Faneuil 
Hall  to  consider  the  demand.  He  was  President  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  twenty-eight  chosen  in  1775  to  exercise  the  supreme 
executive  authority  of  the  Province,  and  in  the  autumn  of  the 
same  year  was  chairman  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation  in  the 
conference  with  Washington  and  the  committee  of  Congress 

lll.  C.  Winthrop,  Address  before  the  Maine  Hist.  Snr.  at  Bowdoin 
5j  1SJ'.».     As  a  descendant  <>t'  Hnvdoin.  Winthrop  had  access  to 
private    papers.    «>   that    his   address   has   something    the   character  of 
an  original  document. 

.  of  Mass.  Bay  III.,  293,  See  also  pp,  156,  228,  and  374. 


20 

relative  to  the  best  means  of  conducting  the  campaign.  Only 
the  illness  of  his  wife,  on  account  of  which  Hancock  took  his 
place  at  the  head  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation  in  Congress, 
prevented  his  being  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence.1 

In  New  York,  not  only  were  Wm.  Bayard  and  John  Jay 
members  of  the  committee  of  correspondence,  but  Jay  was  one 
of  the  sub-committee  to  prepare  answers  to  letters  received, 
and  a  letter,  "probably  from  his  pen,  contains  the  first  propo- 
sition that  was  made  for  convening  a  general  Congress  to  con- 
sider the  (present)  state  of  affairs."  When  the  Congress  was 
convened1,  he  was  one  of  those  unanimously  chosen  to  represent 
New  York.  Entering  upon  his  duties  in  Congress,  he  was 
placed  upon  the  committee  to  prepare  a  memorial  to  the  people 
of  British  America,  "stating  the  necessity  of  a  firm,  united  and 
invariable  observation  of  the  measures  recommended  by  Con- 
gress," as  well  as  on  that  which  composed  the  address  to  the 
people  of  Great  Britain.2  B3th  these  papers  were  probably 
written  by  Jay;  the  latter  certainly  was,  and  "is  generally  ac- 
knowledged to  stand  first  amon£  the  incomparable  productions" 
of  the  first  Congress.3  Jefferson  said  before  knowing  its 
authorship,  that  it  was  "a  production  certainly  worthy  of  the 
finest  pen  in  America."4  The  idea  of  the  petition  to  the  King, 
(July  8,  1775),  originated  with  Jay  and  was  carried  by  him 
against  very  strong  opposition  in  Congress.5  The  double 
honor  of  being  a  member  of  the  Provincial  Congress  of  New 
York  and  of  the  Continental  Congress  at  the  same  time,  and 
the  necessity  that  was  felt  for  his  presence  in  the  former  pre- 
vented his  being  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence.6 But  the  New  York  convention's  resolution  of 
approval,  (July  9,  1776),  was  drafted  by  him,  the  manuscript  in 
his  own  handwriting  being  still  preserved  among  the  records 
of  New  York.7 

'Winthrop,  27:  ff.;  Bancroft,  IV.,  242  and  VI.,  139  and  140. 

2Am.  Archives,  I.,  319,  ff.;  Jour,  of  Cong.,  I.,  19:  Jay's  Life 
of  Jay,  I.,  24. 

8Webster's  Great  Speeches,  311. 

•Works,  I.,  10. 

May's  Jay,  I.,  36. 

May's  Jay,  I.,  43  and  44. 

Correspondence  and  Public  Papers,  I.,  72. 


21 

The  proceedings  of  the  secret  committee  of  Correspond- 
ence "with  the  friends  of  America  in  Great 'Britain,  Ireland 
ana  other  parts  of  the  world,"  were  of  great  importance  in 
securing  the  friendship  of  individuals  abroad  and  probably 
prepared  the  way  for  the  mission  of  Silas  Deane  to  France. 
But  so  great  was  the  secrecy  observed  that  it  does  not  seem 
possible  to  apportion  the  honor  due  to  individual  members  of 
the  committee.  I  see  no  reason,  however,  to  question  the  opin- 
ion of  his  son,  that  Jay  was  -the  chief  organ  of  correspond- 
ence,1'1 especially  in  view  of  his  later  correspondence  with 
Deane  On  the  whole,  it  seems  quite  fair  to  claim  that  there 
was  no  pen  in  Congress  more  continually  and  successfully  used 
for  the  country  at  this  pe'riod  than  Jay's. 

That  the  New  Jersey  Assembly,  disregarding  the  advice  of 
Governor  Franklin,  gave  "express  approbation  of  the  meas- 
ures of  the  Congress"  in  1775,  is  attributed  by  him-  to  Elias 
Boudinot,  afterward  President  of  Congress,  and  others,  who, 
as  he  says,  *  'came  down  from  Elizabeth  Town  and  caballed  among 
the  members. '?2  In  South* Carolina,  Henry  Laurens  was  not 
only  a  member  of  the  First  Provincial  Congress,  but  drew  up 
the  asssociation  to  be  signed  by  all  the  friends  of  liberty,  was 
also  President  of  the  Council,  and  later,  as  is  well-known,  a 
delegate  to  the  Continental  Congress  and  its  President  for 
more  than  a  year.3 

The  celebrated  Mecklenburg  Declaration  was  drafted  by  a 
Huguenot,  Dr.  Ephraim  Brevard.  Though  the  claim  of  some 
that  this  paper  was  the  original  of  the  Declaration  can  hardly 
be  granted,  it  was  doubtless  of  much  importance  in  fostering 
the  spirit  of  Independence  in  North  Carolina.4 

'.lay's  -lay.  I..  04. 

'Letter  from  Gov.   Franklin,   dated   Perth   Amboy.   Mar.   12,  1775,  in 
\rchives.  X..  .~>7.~>. 

'Am.  Cyc.  of  Bio?..  III..  630  and  G:U. 

I  am  not  ignorant  of  tin*  fact  that  Laurens*  patriotism  at  an 
early  stage  of  the  ditlicult  ies  has  been  thought  to  be  open  to  ques- 
tion. The  letter  written  by  him  to  His  Majesty's  Secretaries  Of  State 
while  in  the  Tower,  as  well  as  private  letters  written  during  the  Stamp- 
Ad  disturbances,  are  of  a  «>m«'what  dama^in^  character."  They  may 
be  found  in  Hist.  Mas?..  X..  '2M..  IT.  Sv  als  >  extract  from  "The  Royal 

Lte,"  N.  V..  Oct.  14.  177s;.  on  p.  31(>  of  the  same  Ma«j.  Hut  the  letter 
to  the  Secret  aries  was  the  special  plea  of  a  man  who  wanted  tojjet  out  of 
prison  and  probably  puts  his  conduct  in  the  best  possible  light  for  that 
purpose.  There  arc  not  wanting  indications  in  his  diplomatic  cor- 
re-pondence  that  lie  never  forgot  himself  lor  his  country.  With  that 
limitation— unfortunately  not  the  exclusive  possession  of  citizens  of 
Gallic  descent— I  believe  his  patriotism  to  have  been  sound. 

'Randall,    Life  of  Jefferson,   III.,  570,  ff.;  Am.  Archives,  II.,  855 


22 

Not  to  go  further  into  details,  it  is  evident  that  in  at  least 
five  of  the  colonies,  the  part  taken  by  men  of  Huguenot 
descent  in  the  events  leading  to  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence was  by  n'o  means  a  secondary  one. 

When  the  young  nation  was  once  fairly  launched  upon 
a  war  for  independence,  these  men  continued  the  most  unre- 
mitting exertions  to  that  end,1  but  except  for  the  brilliant  mis- 
sion of  John  Laurens  to  France,  there  is  nothing  of  such  para- 
mount and  striking  importance  as  to  demand  our  attention  till 
we  come  to  the  negotiations  preliminary  to  peace.2 

It  is,  however,  worth  while  to  note  that  young  Laurens  not 
only  obtained  a  subsidy  and  the  assistance  of  Rochambeau  and 
other  officers  with  land  and  naval  forces,  but  that  he  did  it  by 
the  skill  with  which  he  broke  through  all  conventionalties  and 
secured  a  personal  interview  with  the  King,  thereby  avoiding 
the  delays  incident  upon  negotiations  conducted  through  the 
ministry.3 

and  foot  note;  Winsor.  Nar.  and  Grit.  Hist.,  VI.,  256;  Hunter,  Sketches 
of  Western  N.  Car.,  22.  ff.  and  47,  ff»;  Sabine,  Am.  Loyalist,  I.,  38,  and 
articles  in  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist.,  vol.  XXI. 

!I  find  some  Huguenots  in  the  list  of  Loyalists  given  by  Sabine, 
but  they  do  not  seem  to  have  been  numerous. 

2Such  facts  as  that  Gouverneur  Morris  drew  up,  the  plan 
adopted  by  Congress  for' raising  funds  for  army  expenses,  (Diary  and 
Letters,  I.,  4  and  5;)  that  he  also  drew  up  the  instructions  to  Franklin  at 
Versailles  in  1778— the  first  ever  sent  to  an  .American  Plenipo- 
tentiary (Spark's  Life  of  Morris.  I.,  188);  that  Jay  drafted  the  circular 
letter  to  accompany  the  resolutions  stopping  the  emission,  of  bills 
of  credit  in  J779.  (Jour,  of  Cong.,  III.,  350  and  358);  that  Laurens  proposed 
and  Hamilton  heartily  approved  a  scheme  for  raising1  two  or  three  bat- 
talions of  ^egro  troops,  (Jay's  Works,  I.,  191,  ff.  and  Bancroft,  V.,  369 
and  370);  that  Washington  obtained  through  Bowdoin's  "confidential 
agency  '  a  plan  of  the  harbor  of  Halifax  with  a  view  to  its  des- 

truction by  the-French  fleet,"  in  1780,  (Winthrop,  p.  29);  that  on  the  inva- 
sion of  S.  Car.  in  1779,  Manigault,  though  over  75  years  of  age.  shouldered 
a  musket  and  offered  himself  and  his  fourteen-year-old  grand-son  to  the 
service  of  his  country,  (Commemoration  of  Bi-Centennary,  p.54);  though 
very  interesting,  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  had  a  determining  effect  on 
the  course  of  U.  S.  History.  It  was  possibly  more  important  that  some 
of  the  best  Revolutionary  officers  were  Huguenots.  (Proceedings  of 
Huguenot  Soc.,  I.,  41.  and  Cf.  Register  of  Officers). 

3Army  Correspondence  of  John  Laurens,  p.  31,  ff.  Congress  passed 
the  following  resolution:  '"That  the  conduct' of  John  Laurens  in  his  mis- 
sion to  the  court  of  Versailles  as  special  minister  of  the  U.  S..  is  highly 
agreeable  to  Cong,  and  entitles  him  to  •  public  approbation,"  Jour, 
of  Cong.,  III.,  663. 


III.     THE   TREATY   OF    PEACE. 

COMMITTEE  that  negotiated  peace  with  Great 
Britain  consisted  as  finally  constituted,  of  John  Jay, 
Henry  Laurens.  Benjamin  Franklin,  and  John  Adams.  It 
is,  of  course,  a  matter  of  interest  to  know  just  how  far  we  are 
indebted  to  each  of  them  for  the  important  provisions  of  the 
treaty.  If  we  accept  the  views  of  all  who  have  written  on  the 
subject,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  believe  among  other  things 
that  it  was  essentially  the  work  of  Franklin,1  that  we  are  in- 
debted for  the  concessions  in  regard  to  the  fisheries  to  Adams,2 
that  the  glory  belongs  to  Jay  and  Adams  but  especially  to  Jay,3 
that  it  was  owing  to  Laurens  that  the  frontiers  of  the  Repub- 
lic were  extended  to  the  Mississippi  river,1  and'in  this  way  the 
later  annexation  of  Louisiana  provided  for,4  and  that  on  this 
very  point  "we  have  greater  reason  for  gratitude  to  John  Jay 
than  to  either  of  his  colleagues."5  The  truth  probably  is  as 
stated  by  Fiske:  ''To  the  grand  triumph  the  varied  talents  of 
Franklin,  Adams  and  Jay  all  contributed."6 

Yet  I  venture  to  hold  the  opinion  that  the  services  of  Mr. 
Jay  were  even  more  important  than  those  of  either  of  his  col- 
leagues, valuable  as  those  doubtless  were.  The  subject  cannot, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  be  fully  understood  without  reading  the  re- 
markable series  of  letters  written  while  he- was  Minister  Plenipo- 
tentiary to  Spain,  as  well  as  the  correspondence  after  his  trans- 
fer to  Versailles.7  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  '  'family  com- 
pact'1 between  France  and  Spain  rendered  it  of  the  first  im- 
portance to  avoid  giving  offence  to  Spain,  not  only  for  the  sake 

'Parton,  Life  of  Franklin,  II.  650.  "He  saved  the  alliance  over 
and  over  again  and  brought  the  negotiations  to  a  successful  close." 

'Life  by  C.  F.  Adams,  380,  ff. 
'Roosevelt,  Life  of  Morris.  124. 

4Wri>s.   Hist,  of  French  Protestant  Refugees,  I.,  366. 
5Hinsdale,  Old  Xorthwest,  182. 
•Critical  Period  of  Am.  Hist.. 

7The  letters  are  in  Sparks'  Diplomatic  Correspondence.  VII.  and 
VIII.,  and  the  more  important  ones  in  Jay's  Works,  I.  and  II. 


24 

of  an  alliance  with  her,  but  for  the  continuance  of  friendly  re- 
lations with  France.  And  the  fair  inference  from  the  way  in 
which  the  Ministers  were  treated  is  that  neither  France  nor 
Spain  was  anxious  to  secure  great  advantages  for  the  young 
Republic,  and  that  the  latter  at  least  was  most  unwilling  that 
its  borders  should  be  extended  to  the  Mississippi.  That  her 
intention  to  prevent  this  result  was  only  prevented  by  Jay's 
firmness  and  foresight  is  the  conclusion  to  which  one  is  irre- 
sistibly drawn  on  reading  the  correspondence.  Nor  is  there 
more  reason  to  doubt  that  his  courage  in  accepting  the  bills 
which  Congress,  depending  on  the  financial  assistance  of 
Spain,  had  drawn  upon  him,  and  his  skill  in  securing  the 
means  to  redeem  them,  probably  saved  the  country  from  imme- 
diate bankruptcy,  which  would  have  been  fatal  to  all  hopes  of 
-independence. 

What  was  thought  of  his  statesmanship  at  the  time  may  be 
seen  from  the  letter  of  Samuel  Huntington,  President  of  Con- 
gress, written  under  the  direction  of  that  body,  in  which  he 
says,  "throughout  the  whole  course  of  your  negotiations  and 
transactions,  in  which  the  utmost  address  and  discernment  was 
often  necessary  to  reconcile  the  respect  -  due  to  the  dignity  of 
the  United  States  with  the  urgency  of  their  wants  and  the  com- 
plaisance expected  by  the  Spanish  Court,  your  conduct  is 
entirely  approved."1  And  later,  Robert  R.  Livingstone  wrote, 
"your  conduct  through  the  whole  of  your  negotiations  has 
been  particularly  acceptable  to  Congress.''2 

After  he  joined  Franklin  in  France  his  zeal  and  sagacity 
in  securing  the  ends  sought  were  no  less  apparent.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  decide  whether  Vergennes  was  more  friendly  than 
he  thought,  nor  whether  Vaughan's  mission  to  England 
was  the  bit  of  diplomacy  that  secured  the  recognition  of 
United  States  Independence  as  a  preliminary  to  entering  upon 
the  treaty.  In  any  case  there  can  be  no  question  that  he 
showed  great  adroitness  in  his  plan  for  outwitting  what  seemed 
to  him  a  wily  maneuver.  And  in  breaking  loose  from  the 
instructions  to  follow  the  advice  of  the  French  Court,  it  was 
Jay  who  took  the  lead  and  almost  compelled  Franklin  to 
follow.  He  says  in  his  report  that  Franklin  was  "fettered"  by 

'Jay's  Works,  II.,  32,  dated,  "In  Cong.,  May  28,  1781." 

May's  Work,  II.,  188.  The  letter,  Apr.  16,  1782,  is  in  answer  to  Jay's 
of  Oct.  3,  1781. 


25 

>  them,  but  that  he  "could  not  believe  that  Congress  intended 
that  we  (they)  should  follow  any  advice  that  might  be  repug- 
nant to  their  interest."1 

From  all  the  evidence,  then.  I  feel  compelled  to  infer  that 

s  influence  in  keeping  the  country  from  utter  bankruptcy 
till  peace  could  be  secured,  in  obtaining  the  Mississippi  boun- 
dary. in  making  the  recognition  of  independence  one  of 
the  prior  conditions  of  the  treaty  and  in  breaking  away  from 
French  dictation  as  to  the  terms,  was  second  to  that  of  neither 
of  his  colleagues.  The  "Yankee  shrewdness"  which  Fiske 
thinks  was  more  than  a  match  for  the  "traditional  French 
'.  subtlety'.'-  was  itself  of  Gallic  origin. 

As  to  the  Fisheries  question,  his  share  of  the  merit  is  not  • 
so  clear,  though  Hamilton  says  that  the  people  of  New 
England  talked  of.  offering  him  an  annual  tribute'  of  fish.3  He 
seems,  however,  at  the  very  least,  to  have  seconded  Adams 
very  ably  in  that  matter.  Speaking  in  general  terms  of 
the  whole  treaty.  Adams  said  that  the  principal  merit  was 
Jay's.4  And  Fitzherbert,  in  1853,  said  that  it  was  "not 
only  chief  but  solely  through  Jay's  means  that  the  negotiations 
between  England  and  the  United  States  were  brought  to 
a  successful  conclusion.''5  These  statements  from  other  chief 
actors  in  the  affair  do  not  seem  to  me  too  strong. 

Laurens*  part  in  the  negotiations  seems  comparatively  un- 
important. Nor  do  his  letters  have  the  same  ring  of  statesman- 
like and  unselfish  patriotism  as  Jay's.6  But  in  his  own  opin- 
ion. after  being  admitted  to  bail  in  London,  he  made  many 
converts  to  the  idea  of  American  Independence  *  'among  people 
of  the  first  importance."7  And  Bancroft  credits  him  with 
haying  proposed  the  clause  forbidding  the  British  to  carry 
away  Negroes  or  other  property.8  However,  the  work  of  Jay 
alone  during  these  trying  negotiations  would  compel  the 
admission  that  our  national  independence  with  the  favorable 

'Works,  II.,  384. 

'Critical  Period  of  Am.  HNt..  '24. 
>  Hamilton.  Works.  VIII..  148. 

4Letter  to  Jay  in  1880,  Jay's  .lay,  I.,  418. 


Narrai  ivr  and  Critical   Hist..    V  1  1..  Kilt:  Flanders,  Lives 
and  Times  of  the  Chief  .}\i>\  Ices,  I..  :>4:{  and  :{.">!  and  foot  note. 

6They  are  in  Sparks'  Dip.  Cor.,  vol.  II. 
7Dip  Cor..  II..  406  and  469,  ff.,  Cf.  also  482. 
"History,  V.,  579. 


26 

conditions     secured     was     not     altogether     an -^Anglo-Saxon 
achievement. 

Our  interest  in  American  history  from  the  stamp-act  to^the 
treaty  of  Paris  is  apt  to  center  about  the  stirring  events  of  the 
Revolution.  But  during- those  years  the  foundations  of  trans- 
Alleghany  commonwealths  were  being  laid  with-a^heroism 
worthy  of  the  times.  Among  [the  backwoodsmen' -who --first 
peopled  that  region  were  quite  a  number'of  Huguenots, , and  one 
of  them,  John  Sevier,1  was  a  principal  actor  in  some  of  the  most 
important  events  connected  with  state-building  there.  So  that 
not  only  in  the  thirteen  original  colonies,  but  in  some  of  the 
earliest  off-shoots  from  them,  we  may  trace  the  influence  of 
exiles  from  France. 

'Sevier's  work  has  been  well  told  by  Roosevelt,  Winning  of  the 
West,  and  in  Phelan's  Hist,  of  Tenn. 


IV.     STATE  CONSTITUTIONS. 

HILE  the  war  was  sti11  in  Pro»ress>  most  of  the  states 
formed  new  constitutions  under  which  they  lived  for 
many  years.  Bowdoin  was  President  of  the  Massachu- 

s  Convention  in  1779  and  with  the  Adamses  prepared,  dur- 
ing a  recess  of  the  convention,  a  draft  which  with  some  modi- 
fications was  adopted.  Judge  Lowell  %iwho  was  himself  second 

•  >  one  in  that  convention  for  the  zeal  and  ability  which  he 
brought  to  the  work,''  says  of  Bowdoin  that  >;it  was  owing  to 
the  hints  which  he- occasionally  gave  and  the  part  which 
he  took  with  the  committee  who  framed  the  plan  that  some  of 
the  most  admired  sections  in  the  Constitution  of  this  state 
appear  in  their  present  form.''1  To  have  been  one  of  the  chief 
framers  of  the  Constitution  under  which — with  an  occasional 
amendment — the  old  Bay  State  has  lived  and  prospered  for 
more  than  a  century,  is  surely  no  slight  honor;  but  that  is  not 
all.  ''The  ordinance  of  1787  is  a  condensed  abstract  of  the 
Massachusetts  Constitution  of  1780.  Every  principle  contained 
in  the  former  either  in  a  germinal  or  a  developed  form,  except 
that  relating  to  the  obligation  of  contracts,  and  some  temporary 
provisions  relating  to  the  organization  of  the  territorial  gov- 
ernment is  found  in  the  latter,  and  often  in  the  same 
language."-  And  since  the  development  of  the  country  west 
of  the  Alleghanies  owes  so  much  to  this  ordinance,  and  since, 
further,  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  and  hence  the 
Ordinance  owes  so  much  to  a  descendant  of  the  Huguenots,  it 
may  as  well  be  granted  at  once  that  some  of  the  most  boasted 
characteristics  of  our  national  career  are  due  neither  to  the 
Anglo-Saxon  nor  to  the  Dutchman. 

After  the  new  constitution  went  into  effect,  Bowdoin  was 
appointed  with  the  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  Attor- 
n t-y- General,  and  John  Pickering  ;'to  revise  the  laws  in  force  in 

'WinUirop.  :>><>  and  31;  Ilildretb.  III..  :rt:>. 

8I>r.  Cutler  and  t  In-  ( >niinanr«-  «.f  17*7.  hy  W.  F.  Pool.-.  X.  Am.  Re- 
vi.-w.  ( 'X  x  1 1..  ±*i.  tf.  The  quotation  is  on  page  258.  A  comparison  of  tbe 

Ordinance    I'oniv.   I..  4:2'.»    4'.V2    with  tin-  C'ons.  of  Mass.     I'ooiv.    I.. 
973)  will  abundantly  repay  any  student. 


28 

the  state,  to  select,  abridge,  alter,  and  digest  them  so  as  to  be 
accommodated  to  the  present  government."  Winthrop  says: 
"I  have  seen  ample  evidence  in  his  papers  of  the  labor  which 
he  bestowed  on  the  duties  of  this  distinguished  and  most 
responsible  commission."1 

In  the  New  York  Convention  of  1776,  Jay  and  Gouverneur 
Morris  were  leading  members.  Jay  is  said  to  have  prepared 
the  draft  of  the  Constitution  and  his  eulogists  are  probably 
right  in  attributing  its  most  important  features  to  him,  though 
it  is  difficult  to  find  direct  and  positive  evidence  of  the  fact.  He 
made  strenuous  exertions  to  obtain  a  clause  excepting  Roman 
Catholics  from  toleration  till  they  should  abjure  the  authority 
of  the  Pope  to  grant  absolution.  The  most  that  could  be 
obtained,  however,  was  a  proviso — said  to  have  been  proposed 
by  Morris — and  which  was  retained  in  subsequent  revisions  of 
the  Constitution,  that  "the  liberty  of  conscience  hereby  grant- 
ed shall  not  be  so  construed  as  to  excuse  acts  of  licentiousness 
or  justify  practices  inconsistent  with  the  safety  of  the  state," 
and  an  amendment  to  the  naturalization  clause  requiring 
all  persons  to  "abjure  allegiance  to  all  and  every  foreign  king, 
prince,  potentate,  and  state,  in  all  matters  ecclesiastical  as  well 
as  civil,"  before  becoming  naturalized  citizens.  It  was  also  due  s 
to  him  that  acts  of  attainder  were  not  allowed  to  work  corrup- 
tion of  the  blood.  It  seems  quite  likely  that  his  urgency 
on  this  point  was  due  to  his  knowledge  of  the  wrong  endured 
by  his  ancestors  and  the  ingrained  hatred  of  all  that  caused 
those  wrongs,  The  restriction  of  suffrage,  in  some  cases,  to 
freeholders  was  in  accordance  with  his  favorite  maxim  that 
"those  who  owned  the  country  ought  to  govern  it."- 

'Address,  p.  32. 

2On  the  points  covered  by  this  paragraph,   Cf.  Jay's  Jay,   I.,   70; 
Roosevelt's  Morris,  66:  and  Pellew's  Jay,  85-87. 


V.    THE   NATIONAL,    CONSTITUTION. 

WAR  being  closed  and  independence  secured,  it  might  be 
hoped  that  the  young  Republic,  entering  upon  its  course  un- 
der such  favorable  circumstances,  endowed  with  such  a 
wealth  of  natural  resources,  and  above  all  rich  in  men  of  such  con- 
spicuous ability,  would  move  forward  in  a  path  of  uninterrupted 
prosperity.  But  there  were  only  too  evident  signs  of  danger 
from  writhin  which  threatened  its  very  existence.  The  Confed- 
eracy proved  to  be  a  rope  of  sand,  and  there  was  no  power  to 
vcope  successfully  with  the  pressing  financial  and  other  prob- 
lems. Men  of  judgment  and  patriotism  were  by  no  means 
agreed  as  to  the  wisest  measures  to  be  taken.  It  is  a  curious 
and,  as  I  think,  a  very  significant  fact  that,  when  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  spirit  of  localization  was  endangering  the  life  of  the  Re- 
public, men  of  French  extraction  who  were  prominent  in  public 
life  expressed  with  wonderful  unanimity1  a  belief  that  a  stronger 
central  government  was  imperatively  demanded.  A  few  cita- 
tions will  establish  this  point,  but  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss, 
still  less  to  answrer,  the  probably  unanswerable  question,  how 
/"/•  their  views  were  due  to  inherited  and  innate  tendencies  of 
the  Gallic  mind.  As  early  as  1779,  Elias  Boudinot  said  in 
a  private  letter:  "I  am  not  afraid  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Con- 
federacy in  my  day,  but  I  dread  the  consequences  on  the  pres- 
ent basis  to  posterity.  In  my  weak  opinion.  Congress  has  not 
power  enough."-  In  1783,  Jay  wrote:  "I  am  perfectly  convinced 
that  no  time  is  to  be  lost  in  raising  and  maintaining  a  national 
spirit  in  America.  POIO-I'  to  (/<»•<' m  ////-•  racy  c*  t<>  «U.  gen- 

>  sj,nt//<1  be  (jr<Dit<'<l  and  r./v/v/W.  The  governments 
of  the  different  states  should  be  wound  up  and  become 
vigorous."3  He  also  urged  repeatedly  that  the  construction  of 

K)ne  :i  "uirht  to  be  noted.     Tyler  in  the  Va.  debates  on  the 

-itution  dreaded  too  ^ivat   centralization  a<  dangerous  to  liberty. 
Elliot's  Dfbatt's.  in..  r,:',7.  ff. 

-Hist.  Mag.,  -ml  series,  III..  80. 

Wi.rU^.   Oorreftpondeoee and Pablic Papers),  III  also  143, 

\~'2  and  17*  for  other  letters  in  whieh  he  expresses  similar  views. 


30 

the  government  was  "fundamentally  wrong"  in  not  separating 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  functions;  his  idea  being,  if  I 
understand  him,  that  a  distribution  of  powers  would  make  the 
government  more  energetic  and  effective.1  His  desire  for 
a  more  highly  centralized  government  is  the  more  noteworthy 
from  the  fact  that  he  had,  as  he  says,  "from  early  life 
expressed  a  strong  dislike  to  the  arbitrary  government  of 
France,"  and  thought  it  a  government  "always  dreadful  in 
theory  and  more  or  less  so  in  practice  according  to  the  charac- 
ter of  those  by  whom  its  power  is  exercised.'"2 

Gouverneur  Morris  wrote  to  General  Greene:  "From  the 
same  attachment  to  the  happiness  of  mankind  which  prompted 
my  first  efforts  in  this  Revolution,  I  am  now  induced  to  wish 
that  Congress  may  be  possessed  of  much  more  authority  than 
has  hitherto  been  granted  to  them."3  His  views  may  be  still 
more  clearly  read  in  the  Journals  of  the  Convention,  where,  as 
Lodge  says,  "he  favored  a  vigorous  central  government, 
opposed  bitterly  equality  of  votes  in  the  Senate,  and  sought  to 
weaken  the  powers  of  the  states."4 

Lodge  says  that  "from  Massachusetts  under  the  lead 
of  Bowdoin  came  the  first  effort  for  a  better  union  in  the  form 
of  instructions  to  her  representatives  to  urge  the  necessity  for 
a  new  convention  upon  Congress."5  The  first  expression  of 
such  necessity  doubtless  came  from  some  other  source,  though 
Winthrop  says  that  Pelatiah  Webster,  one  of  those  who  are 
credited  with  it,  was  a  friend  of  Bowdoin's.6  But;  however 
much  or  little  credit  we  may  give  the  latter  in  initiating 
the  proceedings,  the  fact  of  his  strong  recommendation  to  the 
legislature  establishes  the  point  I  am  urging,  namely,  that  he 
favored  greater  power  in  the  central  government.  And  if,  as , 

'Works,  III..  210,  226,  234.  He  repeats  the  same  views,  after 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  in  his  charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  on  his 
Eastern  Circuit,  Works.  1 1  L  387. 

'Works,  IV.,  199. 

3Diary  and  Letters,  I..  15.    This  was  in  1781. 

'Atlantic  Monthly,  LVIL.  436.  For  his  remarks  in  convention  see 
Scott's  edition  of  Madison's  Jour..  57,  note,  285,  310,  361,  etc. 

5Life  of  Hamilton.  53. 

6Address,  43.  Burgess  says,  (Political  Science  and  Constitutional 
Law.  I..  101  and  102),  that  Bowdoin  and  Hamilton  were  more  far-seeing 
than  the  rest,  of  1  he  statesmen  of  the  day  and  "discovered  the  root  of  the 
difficulty,  viz.:  that  the  sovereign,  the  state,  had  no  legal  organization  in 

t  he  system." 


31 

Hart  thinks,  the  success  of  Shay's  rebellion  would  [have  made 
the  union  "not  worth  one  of  its  own  discredited  notes,'*1  he  has 
a  still  greater  claim  upon  our  gratitude. 

But  unquestionably  the  most  thorough  centralizer  of  them 
all  was  "America's  greatest  political  genius."  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton. Before,  during,  and  aftar  the  Convention,  he  expressed 
in  the  most  explicit  terms  his  belief  in  the  necessity  of  a  strong 
central  government  and  of  the  danger  to  be  apprehended  from 
giving  too  much  power  to  the  states.  In  his  letter  to  Duane  in 
1780,2  in  his  series  of  papers,  the  Continentalist,3  in  the  resolu- 
tions he  introduced  in  Congress  in  1783, 4- in -the  debates  of  the 
Convention,5  in  the  Federalist, 6gin  his:speech  on  the  revenue 
system  in  the  New  York  Legislature  in  1787,"  in  fact  every- 
where throughout  his  works,  we  may  read  hisndread  of  state 
sovereignty  and  of  power  entrusted  to  the  people. 

Two  only  of  these  men  were  members  of  the  Convention, 
Morris  and  Hamilton.  As  to  the  former,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  impression  made  by  an  examination  of  the  debates  is  that 
he  influenced  the  course  of  proceedings,  perhaps  as  much 
as  anyone.  .  To  this  may  be  added  the  opinion  of  Madison,  that 
he  was  an  ''able,  active  and  eloquent  member."8  To  him'also 
we  owe,  as  regards  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  "that 
admirable  perspicacity  which  has  so  much  diminished  the 
labors  and  hazards  of  interpretation  for  all  future  ages.9 

A  first  hasty  reading  of  the  debates  is  likely  to  prove  dis- 
appointing to  anyone  brought  up  on  the  tradition  that  to  Ham- 
ilton, more  than  to  anyone  else,  we  owe  the  frame  of  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live."  But  further  study  is  reassuring.  If 

formation  of  the  Union.  113. 

'Works  1203.  ff.  Gartield  says  of  him.  "in  camp  before  he  was  twen- 
ty-one years  old.  upon  a  drum-head,  he  wrote  a  letter  which  contained 
every  germ  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  (In  speech  to  the 
"Boys  in  Blue"  N.  Y..  Aug.  6,  18C0.  quoted  by  IIinsdal<-  in  preface 
to  (rurtield's  Works,  p.  XIX  i.  I  think  he  must  refer  to  the  Duane  letter, 
but  Hamilton  was  twenty-three  at  truit  time. 

3Works.  2,'U.  ff. 

4 Works,  I.,  288,  flf. 

'Elliot.  I.  417.  ff.,  and  Madison  Papers.  II..  244.  and  elsewhere. 

.  XVII..  for  example. 
: Works.  II..  16,  ff. 
8Letter  to  Sparks.  Elliot,  I.,  507. 

'Curtis  Iflst.  of  the  Cons..  I..  2'.»7.  ( 'f.  Madisorr's  letter  quoted 
above,  and  Morris-'  letter  to  Pickering.  I.  .""><»<>  and  507. 


32 

the  eleven  propositions  which  he  submitted  to  the  Convention1 
do  not  seem  to  be  of  superlative  importance,  the  speech  by 
which  he  supported  them  was  one  that,  as  is  evident  from  the 
draft  what  remains  to  us2  must  have  carried  great  weight, 
especially  when  coming  from  a  man  of  so  vigorous  a  personal- 
ity. And  the  full  plan  of  a  constitution  that  he  gave  to  Madi- 
son3 presents  with,  it  is  true,  many  points  of  divergence,  points 
of  coincidence  with  that  finally  adopted,  so  many  and  so  strik- 
ing, as  to  force  the  conviction  that  it  must  have  been  known  to 
the  Committees  who  drafted  the  different  articles  and  must  have 
modified  the  result  to  a  large  extent.  We  must  remember,  too, 
that  by  this  time  his  views  had  probably  become  well  known  to 
most  men  in  public  life  and  could  not  have  failed  to  influence 
some  of  them.  There  is  a  tradition  that  he  did  much  in  private 
conversation,  during  the  time  the  Convention  wTas  in  session,  to 
"filtrate"  his  ideas  through  the  material  of  the  Constitution.4 

The  splendid  services  of  Jay  and  Hamilton  in  securing  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  have  never  been  questioned.  The 
numbers  of  the  Federalist  written  by  them  are  enduring  monu 
ments  of  their  wrork.5  In  the  Massachusetts  Convention  that 
ratified  the  Constitution,  both  James  Bowdoin  and  his  son  made 
speeches  in  its  favor. (i 

To  sum  up  the  fragmentary  details,  I  am  thoroughly  con- 
vinced that,  for  the  advocacy  of  ';a  more  perfect  union,"  for 
efforts  to  obtain  a  convention  with  that  end  in  view,  for 
able  and  influential  services  during  its  sessions,  and  for  vigor- 
ous and  successful  efforts  to  secure  the  ratification  of  the  Con- 
stitution, we  are  more  indebted  to  four  men  of  Huguenot  ances- 
try, James  Bowdoin,  Alexander  Hamilton,  Gouverneur  Morris, 
and  John  Jay,  than  to  any  other  four  statesmen  of  the  time.7 

JElliot,  I.,  179,  or  Madison  Papers,  185,  ff. 
2Works,  I.,  353,  ff. 

3Works.  I..  334,  ff.  It  may  also  be  found  in  Supplement  to  Elliot, 
App.,  585,  ff. 

*Morse  Life  of  Hamilton,  I.,  184. 

GSee  also,  Jay's  Address  to  the  people  of  N.  Y.,  Works,  III,  294.  Cf. 
Jay's  Jay,  I.,  260-262  and  269;  Elliot,  II.,  283.  ff. 

For  Hamilton's  work  in  K.  Y.  Convention,  Elliot,  II.,  231—369. 

6Elliot,  II.,  81;  125,  and  178. 

Revere  bad  something  to  do  with  securing  Samual  Adams',  at  first 
doubtful,  support.  Goss,  II.,  451.,  ff. 

7To  Morris  also  we  owe  the  suggestion  for  our  decimal  system 
of  coinage,  though  his  plan  received  important  modifications  from  Jeffer- 
son before  it  was  adopted. 


VI.  THE  EARLY  DAYS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

BUT  no  plan  of  government,  even  if  it  be  *  'the  most  won- 
derful work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  time  by  the  brain 
and  purpose  of  man,"  will  execute  itself.  And  "the 
more  perfect  union, ''  which  owed  so  much  to  Gallic  brains  in 
its  inception,  might  have  been  as  disastrous  a  failure  as  the 
old  Confederacy,  had  not  those  same  brains  devised  the  meas- 
ures for  its  workings  in  its  early  years.  To  tell  adequately 
the  part  taken  by  these  men,  especially  by  Jay  and  Hamilton, 
during  the  first  decade  of  the  constitutional  period  would  be  to 
rewrite  the  history  of  that  decade.  For  present  purposes,  it 
it  will  suffice  to  assume  the  facts  known  to  every  reader  of  our 
national  history,  in  order  to  trace  their  effect  in  the  evolution 
of  that  history. 

We  are  apt  to  think  of  Hamilton  as  the  man  who  '  'smote 
the  rock  of  the  national  resources  and  abundant  streams  of 
revenue  gushed  forth."  The  idea,  which  I  believe  to  be  alto- 
gether correct,  that  all  his  work  tended  toward  centralization, 
though  advanced  by  some  writers,  is  not  so  prominent  in  the 
popular  thought  as  it  deserves  to  be.  That  it  was,  in  fact,  a 
deliberate  purpose  with  him,  to  effect  that  endacan  hardly  be 
doubted  by  any  one  who  makes  a  study  of  all  his  writings. 
His  dread  of  giving  too  much  power  to  individual  states,  his 
desire  to  make  the  central  government  strong  and  controlling 
must  impress  the  most  casual  reader.  That,  to  some  extent, 
"he  builded  wiser  than  he  knew"  is  very  probable.1 

His  schemes  for  assumption  and  funding — too  well  known  to 
need  explanation  here — though  strenuously  opposed  at  the 
time,  are  now  generally  admitted  to  have  been,  from  a  financial 
standpoint,  eminently  wise.  .  Indeed  it  would  seem  that  there 
was  no  escape  from  repudiation  except  through  some  system 

'Jefferson  says,  (Works  III..  4<il  .  thai  the  object  of  Hamilton's 
plan  was  to  subvert  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  that  this  was 
to  be  done  by  corrupting  the  Legislature.  Something  must  be  allowed 
for  the  political  animosity  of  the  two  men.  but  it  is  doubtless  true  that 
he  desired  to  make  more  prominent  those  principles  of  the  Constitution 
which  Jefferson  wished  to  make  less  prominent. 


34 

of  funding,  and  no  other  workable  plan  was  suggested  by  any 
one.1  His  first  report  on  Public  Credit  will  probably  always 
remain  a  financial  classic.  Had  he  done  no  more  than  to  res- 
cue the  country  from  impending  financial  ruin,  and  to  lay  the 
foundation  for  business  prosperity,  he  would  deserve  our  last- 
ing gratitude.  But  the  assumption  of  state  debts  by  the  gen- 
eral government  was,  if  not  the  first  step,  certainly  the  first 
prominent  and  important  step,  in  that  process  of  centralization 
which  is,  perhaps,  not  yet  completed.  That  this  result  was 
not  absent  from  his  thought,  (though  he  could  hardly  have  had 
a  full  conception  of  the  far-reaching  consequences  of  his  plan), 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  distinctly  proposes  as  one  of 
"the  great  and  invaluable  ends  to  be  secured  by  a  proper-  and 
adequate  provision,  at  the  present  period,  for  the  support  of 
public  credit,'*  this,  "to  cement  mo're  closely  the  union  of  the 
states."2 

His  next  important  measure,  the  National  Bank,  still 
further  assisted  the  process  of  centralization,  and  that  in  two 
ways.  First,  by  the  direct  strength  it  brought  the  govern- 
ment, a  strength  which  can  only  be  realized  in  connection  with 
later  contests  over  a  national  banking  system,  and  second,  (and 
this  is  much  more  important),  through  the  doctrine  of  "implied 
powers"  then,  apparently  for  the  first  time  broached  and 
made  operative.3  Undoubtedly  it  did  much  to  widen  the 
breach  between  Federalist  and  Anti-Federalist.  But,  far  more 
than  that,  it  was  the  entering  wedge  of  the  principle  that  the 
'•ins"  of  whatever  party  have  ever  since  found  it  convenient  to 
use,  and  that  the  "outs"  have  as  often  opposed.  It  is  a  prin- 
ciple, too,  whatever  we  may  think  of  its  constitutionality,  upon 
which  many  of  the  most  beneficial  measures  of  the  government 
must  rest  for  their  defense,  Nor  did  his  opponents  or  the 
friends  of  his  measure  fail  to  understand  their  probable  effects. 
On  the  one  hand,  it  was  claimed  that  the  doctrine  of  implied 

'Works,  II.,  47,  ff.;  Am.  State  Papers  Fihance,  I.,  15,  ff. 

2Works,  I.,  52.  His  dread  of  a  dissolution  of  the  union,  unless  prop- 
er revenue  measures  were  adopted,  comes  out  in  bis  speech  on  the  Reve- 
nue System  in  the  N.  Y.  Leg.,  1787,  Works,  II.,  16,  ff.— see  especially  p. 
43;  all  his  important  reports  may  be  found  in  Am.  State  Papers  on 
Finance,  I. 

3Hamilton?s  report  is  in  his  Works,  III.,  325,  ff..  arid  his  reply 
to  Jefferson's  and  Randolph's  constitutional  objections,  180,  ff.  The 
latter  is  far  more  important  for  the  student  of  constitutional  questions, 
being  the  first  and  one  of  the  ablest  expositions  of  the  fundamental  doc- 
trine that  has  been  so  large  a  factor  in  political  controversy  ever  since. 


35 

powers  "establishes  a  precedent  of  interpretation  leveling  all 
th»»  barriers  which  limit  the  powers  of  the  general  government 
and  protect  those  of  the  state  Government;"1  ''that  the  admis- 
sion of  this  doctrine  destroys  the  principle  of  our  government 
at  a  blow,  it  at  once  breaks  down  every  barrier  which  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution  has  raised  against  unlimited  legislation:''- and 
that  some  of  the  arguments  involved  "a  very  dangerous  con- 
struction of  the  powers  vested  in  the  General  Government."3 

On  the  other  hand  it  was  argued  that  it  was  impossible  to 
carry  any  provision  into  execution  •  'without  this  reasonable 
latitude  of  construction."  and  that  powers  had  already  been 
exercised  by  Congress  which  had  been  "deduced 
by  necessary  implication;"4  but  at  the  same  time  it  was  ad- 
mitted that  "the  advocates  of  this  measure  *  *  being  those 
who  in  general  advocate  national  measures  *  *  are  charge 
with  designs  to  extend  the  powers  of  the  government  unduly."-"' 
The  report  on  Manufactures,  though  it  had  no  immediate 
effect  on  legislation,  has  nevertheless  been  the  armory  from 
which  the  chief  weapons  for  the  defense  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem have  been  drawn;  and  it  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  sup- 
pose that  its  effect,  though  not  so  easily  traceable,  has  been 
quite  as  great  as  that  of  his  other  papers.  Certainly  in  so  far 
as  its  principles  have  been  adopted,  they  have  tended  to  the 
growth  of  the  national  power  which  he  so  earnestly  adve- 
rt.* 

Not  only  did  he  mark  out  in  these  three  papers  a  national 
policy  of  finance  that  has  moulded  much  subsequent  history, 
but  even  in  some  of  the  details  of  administration,  his  system 
has  been  followed  by  every  Secretary  since  his  time." 

It  was  through  these  financial  measures  that  his  most  im- 

'Madison,  Benton's  Abridgement.  I..  278.  The  whole  speech.  274,  ff., 
is  worthy  of  study. 

'Stone  of  Md.:  Henton.  I..  293. 

"Jackson  of  Ga.:  Hen  ton.  I..  286. 

4Boudinot:  Benton.  I..  Ames  expressed  similar  views.  278.  ff. 

"Lawrence  of  N.  V.:  Benton.  I..  2*4. 

"The  report  which  was  made  to  the  House.  Dec.  .",.  17H1.  is  in 
}\\<  Works  III..  2'.'4.  ft'.  As  i-arly  as  the  time  1774  when  he  wrote 
his  ••Full  Vindication."  Works.  I.,  3.  ff.,  he  thought  we  might  live  without 
foreign  trade  and  that  manufactures,  once  established,  ••would  pave  the 
way  still  more  to  the  future  grandeur  and  glory  of  America,  and  by 
ing  its  tieed  of  external  commerce  render  it  still  securer  against 
the  encroachments  of  tyranny."  Works.  I..  18. 

7Holles.  Financial  Hist,  of  the  Q.  S..    1789—1860.)  p.  17. 


36 

portant  work  was  done.  Yet  his  influence  as  a  Federal  leader 
and  his  statesmanlike  foresight,  shown  in  his  views  on  many 
public  questions,1  must  not  be  forgotten.  Perhaps  there  is  no 
better  summing  up  of  the  conclusion  to  which  one  must  be  led 
by  the  study  of  his  letters  and  papers  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  the  times,  than  that  of  Prof.  W.  G.  Sumner;  "the 
contest  with  anarchy  and  repudiation  was  the  great  work 
which  went  to  the  making  of  this  nation  at  the  close  of  the 
last  century,  and  Alexander  Hamilton  was  one  of  the  leading 
heroes  of  it."2 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Hamilton's  influence 
upon  political  life  was  not  altogether  beneficent.  We  may,  in 
deed,  dismiss  as  unfounded  the  charge  of  his  enemies  that  he 
wished  for  the  destruction  of  the  Republic  and  the  establish- 
ment of  monarchy.3  The  trade  of  votes  between  different  sec- 
tions of  the  country  by  which  he  secured  his  financial  meas- 
ures4 may  possibly  have  been  a  justifiable  compromise.  And 
his  conduct  in  the  Presidential  elections  of  1796  and  1800  is 
perhaps  for  the  most  part  defensible,  though  it  is  the-jparty 
manager  rather  than  the  statesman  that  appears  in  it.  But 
his  proposal  to  Jay,  then  Governor  of  New  York,  to  secure  the 
re-election  of  Adams  by  a  sharp  maneuver  with  the  legislature 
is  utterly  indefensible  and  his  reasoning  is  precisely  that  of 
the  time-serving  politician,  although  he  disclaims  all  desire  to 
have  anything  done  "which  integrity  will  forbid."5  Consider- 

xThe  scope  of  this  paper  forbids  a  detailed  study  of  these  points, 
the  more  so  as  able  writers  have  already  given  attention  to  the  subject. 
Some  papers  of  his  especially  worthy  of  note  in  this  connection  are  the 
letter  to  Harrison  Gray  Otis  concerning  the  acquisition  of  Florida  and 
Louisiana,  written  in  1779.  (Works,  VIII.,  523  and  524):  his  remarks 
on  aiming  at  an  ascendency  in  American  affairs,  (Federalist,  No.  XL). 
which  seems  almost  to  entitle  him  to  the  credit  of  being  the  inventor  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine;  and  the  Camillas  papers  in  defense  of  Jay's  treaty, 
(Works,  IV.,  371,  ff.,  and  V.,  1—332.) 

2Life  of  Hamilton,  13. 

"Xing  said  that  he  disapproved  of  the  scheme  for  a  Northern  Con- 
federacy. See  New  England  Federalism.  148.  And  in  his  Report  on 
Manufactures  there  is  a  very  interesting  passage  in  which  he  deprecates 
the  idea  of  a  "contrariety  of  interests  between  the  North  and  South." 
In  the  much  talked  of  Miranda  affair,  it  was  the  participation  of  the  gov- 
ernment for  which  he  wished.  See  letters  to  Rufus  Xing  and  to  Miran- 
da, Aug.  22,  1798,  Works,  VIII.,  505—507. 

4;'The  Potomac  Trade."    See  Jefferson's  Works,  IX.,  92,  ff. 

5The  electors  in  N.  Y.  at  that  time  were  chosen  by  the  Legislature. 
A  plan  to  have  them  chosen  by  districts  had  been  defeated  by  the  Feder- 
alists at  the  previous  session,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unconstitutional 
(Hammond.  Political  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  I.,  133).    When  it  appeared  from  the 


37 

ing  such  a  deed  in  connection  with  the  weight  that  his  ability 
and  unquestioned  services  to  the  country  have  given  to  all  his 
acts  there  is  reason  to  feel  that  he  was  to  some  extent  respon- 
sible for  debauching  the  public  conscience  and  that  his  ex- 
ample has  encouraged  later  and  lesser  politicians  to  go  still 
farther  in  the  ways  of  doubtful  political  morality.1 

Jay's  public  services  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion were  performed  in  the  capacity  of  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States,  from  1789  to  1795,  of  special  envoy  to  Great 
Britain  in  1794  and  179.").  and  of  Governor  of  New  York  from 
171.'."  to  1801.  H.s  brief  tenure  of  office  as  Chief  Justice  was 
made  practically  briefer  yet  by  his  mission  to  England.  Be- 
side that,  the  nation  was  still  too  young  to  furnish  many  of 'the 
complicated  problems  of  our  later  jurisprudence.  Nevertheless 
he  left  his  mark  on  our  judicial  history.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  decision  that  a  state  was  suable  by  the  citizens  of  another 
state  led  to  the  eleventh  amendment  of  the  Constitution. 
What  is  not  so  generally  known,  but  is  much  more  important, 
is.  that  by  this  first  notable  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  the 
subordination  of  the  State  to  the  Nation  was  established  as  a 
constitutional  principle.  Jay's  discussion  of  sovereignty,  his 
historical  exposition  of  the  way  in  which  the  people  of  the 
United  States  established  a  Constitution  "by  which  it  was  their 
will  that  the  state  government  should  be  bound,  and  to  which 
the  state  constitutions  should  be  made  to  conform,"  and  his 
conclusion  that  the  "sovereignty  of  the  nation  is  on  the  people 
of  the  nation.''  and  only  the  "residuary  sovereignty*'  in  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state  ought  not  to  be  overlooked  in  any  study  of  the 
development  of  the  spirit  of  nationality.'2  Had  the  decision 
been  different,  had  the  doctrine  of  States  Rights  been  recog- 
nized at  the  outset  by  the  Supreme  judicial  authority,  it  is  at 

bs  of  the  spring  elections  that  the  new  Legislature  would  support 

-onn.  Hamilton  proposed  to  Jay  to  call  the  old  Legislature  together  at 

one.-    and    M-riire    til'-    appointment    of   electors    by    districts,    which    it 

wa-  thought    would  give  the  election   to  Adams.     Hamilton's  Works. 

VIII..  54i».  IV.     Jay's  endorsement  upon  the  letter,  "proposing  a  measure 

for  pany  purpox-s  which  1  think  it  would  not   become  me  to  adopt," 

Jay'-,  Jay.  I..  414  .  well  illustrates  the  moral  difference  between  the  two 

men. 

1  Jefferson  slid  lie  wa>  "so  "ocwit'-hed  and  perverted  by  British  ex- 
ample as  to  be  under  thorough  conviction  that  corruption  was  essential 
..-nmieiit  of  a  nation."     Works.   IX..  '.»7  .     He  also  plainly  im- 
ual  the  Bank  was  intruded  to  control  the  action  of  Congress,  p.  95. 

2The  opinion  may  be  found  in  his  Works.  III.,  453,  ft.,  and  2 
Dallas,  419,  II. 


38 

least  supposable  that  the  conflicts  of  succeeding  years  would 
have  led  to  an  early  disruption  of  the  Union. 

No  other  question  of  paramount  constitutional  importance 
seems  to  have  come  before  him  for  decision.1  Scarcely  less 
important,  however,  is  the  fact  that  as  "Chief  Justice  of  his  own 
state  and  of  the  United  States,  he  impressed  Grand  Jurors  and 
all  concerned  with  the  necessity  of  encouraging  a  profound 
respect  for  law  and  constitution  in  the  new  order  of  things, 
and  at  the  outset,  through  his  own  personal  dignity  and  integ- 
rity gave  character  to  our  highest  courts  since  traditionally 
preserved."2 

Jay's  treaty  with  England  excited  violent  opposition  at  the 
time  so  little  seemed  to  be  gained  in  comparison  with  what  was 
granted.  Opinions  regarding  it  will  always  differ,  probably, 
since  the  question  is  largely  whether  war,  especially  in  view 
of  the  probably  resulting  alliance  with  revolutionary  France 
would  have  been  a  national  calamity.  But  in  view  of  his  long, 
tedious,  and  so  eminently  successful  negotiations  in  the  Revo- 
lutianary  period,  it  will  not  do  to  assert,  as  does  one  historian, 
that  "he  had  always  been  a  timid  negotiator  on  America's  be- 
half."3 Neither  does  his  correspondence  in  connection  with 
the  treaty  justify  such  a  statement.4  His  own  opinion  that  no 
more  favorable  conditions  were  at  that  time  attainable,5  is  also 
entitled  to  some  weight.  It  should  not  be  forgotten,  either. 
that  in  the  course  of  negotiations  with  England  for  twenty-five 
years  subsequently  this  nation  scored  no  very  marked  suc- 
cess.6 It  was  necessary  to  demonstrate  our  claim  to  b£  a  great 


^is  charge  to  the  Grand  Jury  at  Richmond,  (Works,  III.,  478,  ff.), 
is  considered  by  Pellew  to  have    placed    our    international    relations 
on  a  legal  basis.   It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  that  was  really 
done  till  actual  questions  came  up  for  adjudication.      H.  L.  Carson  says.  , 
(Supreme  Court  of  the  U.  S.,  160,  ff.),  that  the  first  important  cause  (Geo.  v 
V.  Brailsford  and  others,  2  Dallas,  40,  ff.,  and  415,  ff.),  involved  the  theory 
that  the  treaty  of  peace  was  part  of  the  supreme  law  and  could  not  be 
restricted  in  its  operation  by  state  action  or  state  laws. 

8Johnston,  Preface  to  Jay's  Works. 
3Schouler,  I.,  293. 

4Am.  State  Papers,  Foreign  Relations,  I.,  470—525.       The  more  im- 
portant letters  are  also  in  Works,  Vol.  IV. 
6  Works,  IV..  138. 

6"It  is  a  little  remarkable  that  no  subsequent  arrangement  with 
Great  Britain  has  been  equally  advantageous."  Dwight,  Hist,  of  Hart- 
ford Convention,  51. 

"Jay's  treaty  was  a  masterpiece  of  diplomacy,  considering  the  time 
and  circumstances  of  the  country."  Sumner,  Life  of  Jackson,  12. 

See  also  Jay's  Jay,  I.,  378.  for  the  commercial  privileges  and  the 


39 

nation  before  that  claim  was  accepted.  That  Jay's  Treaty  se- 
cured a  period  of  comparative  quiet,  in  which  the  national  life 
hud  time  to  mature,  is  its  chief,  and  probably  a  sufficient  de- 
fense. 

The  most  important— from  a  national  point  of  view — of 
Jay's  arts  while  Governor  of  New  York  has  already  been 
noticed.  In  general  it  may  be  said,  that  his  political  conduct 
was  dictated  by  a  high  sense  of  honor  and  a  lofty  patriotism. 
He  always  refused  to  use  his  influence  with  the  President  or 
the  heads  of  Departments  in  securing  appointments  to  office.1 
Win »n  in  1702,  by  methods  since  quite  familiar  to  the  citizens 
of  New  York,  the  office  of  Governor  to  which  he  had  undoubt- 
edly been  chosen  was  given  to  his  opponent,  the  popular  indig- 
nation was  so  great  that  a  word  from  him  would  probably  have 
led  to  methods  for  redressing  the  wrong  as  illegal  as  those 
which  procured  it.2  That  in  a  state  and  nation  just  learning 
the  difficult  lesson  of  self-government,  such  a  course  would 
have  fostered  a  disposition  to  exercise  a  sort  of  political  lynch 
law  can  hardly  be  doubted.  So  that  his  holding  his  followers 
to  a  reverence  for  law { was  not  the  least  of  his  services  to  his 
country.  Again,  in  his  refusal  on  moral  grounds  to  support 
one  of  the  candidates  of  his  party  and  in  his  published  vindi- 
cation of  his  course,  he  pointed  out.  with  a  clearness  that  has 
not  been  improved,  the  somewhat  difficult  line  between  party 
fealty  and  personal  independence.3 

The  reader  of  JA//-/-/V  diary  arid  letters  is  at  once  im- 
pressed by  the  fact  that  he  was  of  all  our  Revolutionary  Hu- 
guenot statesmen  the  most  thorough^man  of  the  world,  and  in 
so  far  the  most  typical  Frenchman.  Possibly  it  was  owing  to 
this  characteristic  that  he  was  able  to  overcome  some  of  the 
difficulties  incident  to  the  position  of  Minister  at  the  Court  of 
Versailles  during  the  trying  period  of  the  French  Revolution. 

indemnities  received  by  Am.  merchants  under  the  treaty.  It  is  of 
interest  to  note  Unit  the  claims  were  prosecuted  in  the  English  Admir- 
alty Court*  b\  another  Huguenot.  Samuel  Bayard.  (Proceedings  of  Hu- 
guenot Soc.,  II.,  144. 

May's  .Jay..  1.281. 

'For  an  account  of  the  fraud,  see  Jay's  .Jay.  I.,  284,  ff. 

Bays  -<we  are  and  will  be  faithful  to  the    *    *    party,  but  we 

will  also  be  faithful  to  our  sense  and  conviction  of  what  is  decent  and 

becoming  for  us  to  do.     Adherence  to  party  has  its  limits,  and  they  are 

ribed  and  marked  by  that  Mipivme  wisdom  which  lias  united  and 

;uted  true  policy  with  rectitude  and  honor  and  self-respect."    This 

was  in  1*12.     -Jay's  Jay.  I.,  449. 


40 

He  was  probably  the  only  ambassador  who  was  able  to  remain 
during  the  Keign  of  Terror.1  His  principal  work  was  the 
management  of  our  debt  to  France  and  the  protesting  against 
outrages  upon  our  commerce.  To  have  obtained  just  satisfac- 
tion at  that  juncture  would  doubtless  have  been  out  of  the 
question  for  any  one.  Not  to  "sacrifice  personal  or  national 
.dignity"2  -was  clearly  a  work  of  some  importance  and  one  for 
which  there  were  few  Americans  of  the  time  so  well  fitted. 

After  his  return  to  this  country  he  served  an  unexpired 
term  of  three  years  in  the  Senate  but  without  any  noteworthy 
connection  with  measures  of  far-reaching  importance.  His 
sympathies  were  strongly  Federalist  and  at  one  time  he  evi- 
dently desired  a  union  of  the  northern  states  against  adminis- 
tration measures.3 

Boudinot  remained  in  Congress  for  two  terms  after  the 
adoption' of  the  Constitution  and  the  meager  details  given  in 
the  Annals  of  Congress,  show  him  to  have  taken  an  active  part 
in  the  questions  that  came  up  for  consideration.  We  have  al- 
ready seen  that  he  favored  Hamilton's  financial  measures.  On 
another  great  Constitutional  question — that  of  removal  from 
office — he  argued  in  favor  of  giving  that  power  to  the  Presi- 
dent alone,  arid  thought  the  efficiency  of  the  government 
might  depend  on  the  determination  of  the  question.4 

Bowdoin  recommended  to  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts, 
as  early  as  1786,  measures  for  the  protection  of  manufactures, 
mentioning  iron  and  wool  as  of  especial  importance,  and  under 
his  lea,d  the  Legislature  passed  a  bill  to  counteract  the 'restrict- 
ive 'policy  of  foreign  nations.  The  operation  of  the  bill  was  to 
cease  whenever  Congress  should  receive  power  to  take  the 


aDfary  and  Letters,  I.,  576.  Lodge  asserts  it  as  a  fact,  Atl.  Monthly, 
LVIL,  444. 

2See  entry  in  his  Diary,  II.,  70,  Oct.  12,  1794,  the  day  of  his  leaving 
Paris.  He  says  he  "would  have  gained  everything,"  if  the  Am.  govern- 
ment had  refused  to  recall  him.  His  recall  was  not  due  to  any  dissatis- 
faction on  Washington's  part  with  him  or  his  conduct  of  affairs.  See 
Writings  of  Washington,  XII.,  4,33,  ff.  Lodge  in  the  article  cited  above 
makes  a  much  stronger  presentation  of  the  case  for  Morris  than  I  have 
done.  While  not  Questioning  his  opinion,  I  have  found  no  evidence  by 
which  I  can  reach  his  conclusion  independently. 

3Diary  and  Letters,  II.,  542,  545,  546,  547,  551,  ff.,  will  give  an  idea  of 
his  political  views. 

His  biographers  and  eulogists  represent  him  to  have  been  the  origi- 
nal proposer  of  the  Erie  Canal.    (Sparks,  I.,  495,  ff.;  Roosevelt,  359;  and 
Lodge  in  the  article  already  cited.)    Evidence  against  his  claim  may  be 
found  in  Vol.  II.,  of  the  Publications  of  the  Buffalo  Hist.  Soc. 
'Elliot,  IV.,  357,  ff.,  and  389,  ff. 


41 

matter  under  national  control.  For  this  early  recommendation. 
Winthrop  thinks  he  should  be  considered  the  grandfather 
of  the  American  system,  whoever  may  rightfully  claim  to  be  its 
father.1 

The  views  of  the  Huguenots  on  the  question  of  slavery 
should  not  be  passed  without  notice.  Anthony  Benezet,  who 
devoted  his  life  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  humanity — largely 
in  connection  with  this  question — was  a  Huguenot.  His  work 
was  chiefly  done  before  the  Revolution,  but  he  is  said  to  havr 
had  a  personal  conference  with  every  member  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Legislature  that  passed  the  act  of  gradual  abolition 
in  17*0.-  Manigault  refused  to  traffic  in  slaves  and  treated  his 
own  with  kindness.3  Henry  Laurens  wrote  to  his  son  in  177H. 
expressing  in  unmistakable  terms  his  abhorrence  of  slavery 
and  his  determination  to  free  his  own  slaves  as  fast  as 
possible.4  Preneau  also  wrote  against  slavery.5 

In  the  Constitutional  Convention,  arguing  for  representa- 
tion according  to  the  number  of  free  inhabitants,  Morris  declared 
he  would  never  "concur  in  upholding  domestic  slavery,''  charac- 
terized it  as  a  nefarious  institution  and  "the  curse  of  Heaven 
on  the  states  where  it  prevailed.6  Hamilton  had  previously 
moved  a  resolution  for  representation  on  that  basis."  but. 
he  was  absent  from  the  convention  for  several  weeks  including 
the  day,  August  8.8  on  which  the  discussion  took  place,  and  this 
accounts  for  his  taking  no  part  in  it.  His  sentiments  may  be 
easily  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  Manumission  Society 
made  him  one  of  their  counsel  in  1798. 9  He  was  also  one  of  the 
petitioners  who  declared  to  the  New  York  Legislature  in  17N> 
that  the  men  held  as  slaves  by  the  laws  of  New  York  were  free 

by  the  laws  of  God.10   Boudinot's   strong  anti-slavery  views 

. j 

1  Addn-^s.  44.  ff. 

-Wilx.n.  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Slave  Power.  I..  1<>. 

3Lee;  II..  77. 

4An  extract  from  the  letter  is  given  by  Greeley.  Am.  Conflict.  I.,  :w. 
footnote. 

3  Proceed ings  of  Huguenot  Soc..  II..  71. 
MadNnifs  -Journal.  478. 
7Madi>oifs  .Journal.  TO. 

"Sunnier.  Life  of  Hamilton.  i:<4.  siy>  lie  \va>  absent  .June  i2(.»-Aug.   13. 
Pk»,   -I.e.  Hamilton's  ed.;.  VI..  208. 

10Goodell.  Slavery  and  Anti-Slavery.  !»7.     He  n-IVrs  to  MSS.  of  Win. 
Jay. 


42 

come  out  clearly  in  the  Congressional  debates  on  the  slave 
trade. l 

But  it  is  John  Jay  of  whose  opinions  on  this  subject 
we  have  the  fullest  record.  In  the  New  York  Constitutional 
Convention,  Morris  introduced  a  recommendation  to  future 
Legislatures  to  take  measures  for  the  abolition  of  domestic 
slavery,  but  it  was  not  adopted.  Jay.  who  was  absent  at 
the  time  and  seems  not  to  have  known  of  the  proposition, 
wrote  to  Livingston  and  Morris  that  he  should  have  been  "for 
a  clause  against  the  continuance  of  domestic  slavery."1  Writ- 
ing from  St.  Ildefonso  in  1780  of  the  plan  for  gradual  abolition, 
he  said:  "Till  America  comes  into  this  measure,  her  prayers 
to  Heaven  for  liberty  are  impious.  This  is  a  strong  expression, 
but  it  is  just.  Were  I  in  your  Legislature  I  would  prepare  a 
bill  for  this  purpose  with  great  care,  and  I  would  never  cease 
moving  it  till  it  became  a  law  or  I  ceased  to  be  a  member.  I  be- 
lieve God  governs  the  world  and  I  believe  it  to  be  a  maxim  in 
His  as  in  our  courts,  that  these  who  ask  for  equity  ought 
to  do  it.''3  Notwithstanding  these  strong  expressions  he  made 
no  recommendations  for  such  a  measure  in  his  lirst  message  after 
he  became  Governor  of  New  York.  In  the  opinion  of ;  his  son. 
he  refrained  from  doing  so  from  a  belief  that,  in  the  state 
of  politics,  such  a  proposition  from  him  would  arouse  party 
antagonism.4  At  any  rate,  early  in  the  session  an  intimate 
friend  of  his  introduced  a  bill  for  gradual  emancipation.  It  was 
defeated,  as  were  two  subsequent  attempts,  but  in  1790  such  a 
bill  actually  passed.  "Probably,"  says  his  son,  "no  measure 
of  his  administration  afforded  him  such  unfeigned  pleasure." 
He  was  the  first  President  of  the  Manumission  Society  and 
himself  purchased  slaves  for  the  purpose  of  freeing  them.5 

From   the   above   survey,    it    is    quite    evident    that    for 
the  curse  of  slavery  left  as  a  legacy  by  the  Revolutionary 
fathers  we  are  not  indebted  to  statesmen  of  Huguenot  descent. 
It  thus  appears  that  for  invaluable  services  during  the  con- 
Especially  Annals,  II.,  1466,  ff. 

"Works,  I.,  136,  and  footnote.    Also  Morris,  Diary  and  Letters,  I.,  7. 
3Works,  I.,  407.    The  letter  was  to  Egbert  Benson. 

4The  opposition  to  him  at  a  former  election  was  largely  on  account 
of  his  views  on  this  question.  Jay's  Jay,  I.,  284,  ff.  For  the  history  of 
his  connection  with  the  bill,  see  I.,  390-408. 

5For  such  facts  and  for  valuable  expressions  of  his  views.  Cf..  Jay  s 
Jay,  I.,  230,  ff.,  and  Works,  III.,  185,  340,  ff.,  IV..  430-4:52. 


43 

for  Independence,  for  wise  contributions  to  State  and 
National  Constitutions,  and  for  important  measures  in  the 
early  years  of  the  nation's  life,  we  owe  a  large  debt  to  the 
descendants  of  French  Protestant  refugees.  Were  this  study 
to  be  carried  through  our  later  history,  it  would  include  the 
work  of  our  second  martyr  President,  of  Gallatin.  Poinsett,  the 
Bayards,  and  many  another.  Were  it  to  include  the  labors  of 
men  outside  of  political  life,  the  names  of  Maury  and  Agassiz 
in  science;  of  the  philanthropist.  Gallaudet;  of  the  railway 
magnate.  Chauncey  Depew;  of  the  founder  of  the  Chautauquan 
movement:  of  the  poets,  Longfellow  and  Whittier;  and — by  no 
means  least — of  the  Historians  who  have  done  more  than 
all  others  to  familiarize  us  with  the  character  and  heroic  deeds 
of  the  Huguenots,  the  Baird  brothers,  would  need  to  be 
mentioned.  Nor  would  this  exhaust  the  list.  The  longer  one 
investigates,  the  clearer  it  is  that  in  every  honorable  walk  of 
life  our  Huguenot  fellow -citizens  have  attained  distinction.  In 
any  accounting  for  the  forces  that  have  made  us,  Gallic  brains 
and  character  must  be  held  to  have  been  of  incalculable  value. 


II.     THE  FRENCH  CATHOLICS. 

I.      THE  OLD  NORTHWEST. 

story  of  the  exploration  and  settlement  of  the  North- 
west  and  the  Mississippi  valley  by  the  French  is  one  of 
the  most  romantic  in  our  history.  But  it  would  be  quite 
irrelevant  to  repeat  it  here.  The  fact  of  French  occupancy  is 
all  that  is  essential  for  present  purposes — a  fact  not  likely  soon 
to  be  forgotten,  since  from  Lake  to  Gulf  our  national  map 
is  liberally  bestrewn  with  names  whose  Gallic  origin  is  not  to 
be  concealed  even  by  our  grotesque  Anglo-Saxon  mispronun- 
ciation. 

When  the  region  known  as  "the  old  Northwest"'  passed 
under  the  control  of  the  United  States,  the  population  was 
almost  entirely  French.1  Their  principal  settlements  were 
Detroit  and  its  immediate  vicinity,  Vincennes  on  the  Wabash. 
and  the  Illinois  villages,  Kaskaskia,  Cahokia,  Prairie  du  Rocher, 
and  Prairie  du  Pont.  We  should  then  expect  to  find  marked 
traces  of  their  influence  on  the  early  political  life  of  Michigan, 
Indiana,  and  Illinois.  Ohio  was  settled  later,  mostly  by  immi- 
grants from  the  older  states,  so  that  we  should  hardly  look  to 
find  the  French  a  political  factor  in  that  state.  In  Wisconsin 
there  were  scattered  forts  but  no  extensive  settlements.2 
Moreover  that  state  was  much  later  in  its  political  development. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  exactly  the  number  of  French 
inhabitants  of  the  region.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  about 
the  time  of  the  French  and  Indian  war  they  numbered  not  far 
from  10,000  souls,  but  there  was  considerable  loss  of  population 
prior  to  the  Revolution.3 

'King's  Ohio,  Chap.  VIII.;  Western  Reserve  Hist,  and  Arch.  Tracts, 
No.  55,  The  State  of  Ohio— Sources  of  her  Strength,  by  Chas.  Whittlesey. 

2See  Turner,  The  Character  and  Influence  of  the  Indian  Trade 
in  Wis.,  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  1891;  Draper,  early  French  Forts  in  Western 
Wisconsin,  Wis.  Hist.  Coll.,  X.  321,  ff.;  and  Neill,  Notes  on  Early  Wis. 
Explorations,  same  Vol.,  292,  ff. 

3I  have  examined  a  large  number  of  reports,  travellers'  accounts,  and 
histories,  on  this  point,  with  no  very  satisfactory  results.  The 


45 

When  Geo.  Rogers  Clarke  made  his  expedition  to  the  Illi- 
nois and  Wabash  regions  in  1778 — the  expedition  that  secured  for 
Virginia  and  hence  for  the  United  States  the  possession  of  that 
country  —he  was  so  fortunate  as  to  conciliate  the  French 
priest.  Father  Gibault.  who  gave  the  most  valuable  proof 
of  his  loyalty  by  securing  the  release  of  Vigo.  The  latter, 
a  St.  Louis  trader,  had  been  taken  into  custody  by  Hamilton, 
though  apparently  without  justification  under  the  laws  of  war. 
and  was  held  at  Vincennes.  Father  Gibault  placed  himself  at 
the  head  of  the  French  inhabitants  after  service  on  Sabbath 
and  inarching  to  the  fort  threatened  to  cut  off  all  supplies  from 
the  garrison  unless  Vigo  were  released.  Once  set  free,  Vigo 
hastened  to  Clark  with  information  that  enabled  him  to  march 
against  Hamilton  with  success,  thus  completing  the  conquest 
of  that  part  of  the  territory.  In  the  opinion  of  Judge  Law. 
••Next  to  Clark  and  Vigo  the  United  States  are  indebted  more 
to  Father  Gibault  for  the  accession  of  the  states  comprised  in 
what  was  the  original  Northwest  Territory  than  to  any  other 
man."  In  view  of  all  the  circumstances,  this  does  not  seem  an 
exagerated  estimate  of  the  value  of  his  services,  for  there  can 
be  little  question  that  the  French  were  in  position  to  turn  the 
scale  in  favor  of  either  party.1 

It  is  not  a  little  curious,  however,  that  almost  equal  credit 
is  due  to  another  Frenchman,  a  Protestant  and  a  son  of  Hugue- 
nots exiled  from  their  historic  city,  LaRochelle — Charles  Gra- 
tiot.  When  the  army  was  in  danger  of  starvation  he  "made 
himself  accountable  *  *  to  the  full  extent  of  his  vast  estate  for 


statements  are  contradictory  and  in  no  fuse  bused  on  reliable  statistics. 
Some  of  the  estimates  are  undoubtedly  guess-work.  Cf..  Walker.  The 
Northwest  during  the  Revolution.  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll..  III..  12.  tf.:  Hins- 
dale.  The  Old  Northwest.  4*:  Roosevelt.  Winning  of  tin-  \\Vst.  I..  33  and 
35,  with  footnote-:  St.  flair  Papers;  Scharf.  Hist,  of  St.  Louis.  Tti: 
Burnet.  Notes  on  the  Northwest.  31  and  L'**:  and  the  Histories  of  Ran- 
dolph and  St.  ( 'lair  Count  ies.  111.  >lt  is  claimed  that  these  i  wo  histories 
art-  hast-d.  so  far  as  possible,  on  original  data,  many  old  and  valuable 
MSS..  both  French  and  English,  having  been  examined.  I  have  found 
them  inor«-  reliable  than  the  ordinary  county  historic-. 

'Cf..  Hinsdale.  Old  Northwest.  1-V.t:  Law.  Address  on  the  Colonial 
Hist,  of  YinceniM's.  A  pp.  .V>.  tf.:  Roosevelt.  Winning  of  the  West.  II.  88, 
Hamilton  himself  gives  ••among  reasons  not  mentioned  on 
the  face  of  the  capitulation  the  certainty  of  the  Inhabitants 

of  the  village  having  joyned  the  rebels."  He  also  pays  his  respects  to  the 
priest  as  tin-  -wretch  who  absolved  t  lie  Krench  Inhabitants  from 

th.-ir  allegiance  to  the  King  of  (Jreat  Britain."  Report.  Haldimand 
Paper-,  ^iveii  in  Michigan  Pioneer  Coll..  IX..  4*!».  tf. 


46 

the  supplies."  Had  it  not  been  for  this  generosity,  the  cam- 
paign would  very  likely  have  been  a  disastrous  failure. l 

In  Michigan  there  was  less  opportunity  for  active  sympa- 
thy with  the  colonies  and  the  French  took  no  decided  stand.-' 

Immediately  after  Clark's  campaign,  Virginia  undertook 
the  government  of  the  conquered  country  and  in  the  fall  of 
1778,  Col.  John  Todd  was  made  County-Lieutenant.  To  his 
"Record-Book,"  fortunately  rescued  from  a  mass  of  papers 
used  for  fuel  in  the  courthouse  of  Randolph  County,  111.,  we 
are  indebted  for  the  most  that  is  certainly  known  about  the  his- 
tory of  the  territory  during  his  administration.3  There  is 
nothing  to  indicate  that  the  French  concerned  themselves 
much  about  the  government,  although  in  accordance  with  his 
instructions,  Todd  held  an  election  for  Judges,  all  of  whom 
wrere  chosen  from  among  the  French  settlers.  All  the  officers 
appointed  by  Todd.  except  Winston,  the  commandant  at  Kas- 
kaskia,  were  also  Frenchmen.  Roosevelt  says  the  "Judges 
governed  their  decisions  solely  by  the  old  French  laws  and 
customs."4  One  incident  given  in  the >  Record- Book  is  ^fairly 
typical  of  their  attitude  when  the  task  of  self-government  was 
laid  upon  them.  During  one  of  Todd's  absenc'es,  the  Judges 
adjourned  court  to  what  seemed  to  him  too  distant  a  day. 
"Pleasure  first  had  always  been  the  rule  in  Kaskaskia,  and  to 
compel  a  man  to  hold  court  when  ,he  preferred  to  smoke 
a  pipe  in  the  sun  or  go  fishing  was  an  unreasonable  hardship." 
But  on  his  return  they  were  ordered  to  hold  court  at  no  distant 
day  and  doubtless  complied  with  the  demand.5 

Reynolds,  Pioneer  Hist,  of  111.,  256  and  257.  Washburn,  who  mar- 
ried Gratiot's  grand-daughter,  quotes. him,  Wis.  Hist.  Coll.,  X.,  240 
and  241,  so  that  it  must  have  been  a  family  tradition.  Neither  Gratiot 
nor  Gibault  secured  any  substantial -reward  for  his  services,  though  both 
made  some  effort  to  do  so.  In  regard  to  Gratiot's  claim,  Cf.,  with  refer- 
ences previously  given,  Billon  Annals  of  St.  Louis.  214  and  215,  221-225, 
and  Hist,  of  St.  Glair  Co.,  III.,  45.  In  regard  to  Gibault 's,  St  Glair  Papers, 
II.,  179.  All  the  French  settlers  were  generous  in  support  of  the  expedi- 
tion and  most  of  them  were  never  reimbursed. — St.  Clair  Papers,  II.,  K5S. 

2Hinsdale  says,  p.  159,  that  "in  the  far  north  the  French  were  more 
favorably  disposed  toward  the  British,"  though  '"the  officers  complained 
of  *  *  (their)  apathy.''  Cf..  Campbell,  Early  French  Settlements  in 
.Midi.,  Pioneer  Coll..  II..  !>5.  ff.  '  He  savs  there  were  soitfeTnciicaTiQns  of 
sympathy  with  the  United  States,  p.  103. 

3For  an  interesting  account  of  the  book,  now  in  the  possession  of  the 
Chicago  Hist.  Spc.,  see  Illinois  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  49.  Its  sub- 
stance is  given  in  the  succeeding  pages  of  that  valuable  little  tract. 

4Winning  of  the  West.  II.,  171.  He  refers  to  State  Dept.  MSS.  No,  48. 
Mllinois  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  01. 


47 

After  Todd's  departure  in  1780  there  was  very  little  civil 
rninent.   but   the  local   officials,    in    imitation  of  practices 

pved  amon.ir  the  English,  indulged  in  gigantic  land  specu- 
lations, in-anting  to  each  other  large  tracts  of  land  under  the 
pleasing  delusion  that  their  powers  in  that  direction  were 
unlimited.1 

The  Virgin!;  »n  brought  the  territory  under  the  direct 

control  of  the  United  States.  The  successive  divisions  of  the 
territory,  the  different  stages  of  territorial  government,  and. 
the  advance  to  statehood  of  the  five  commonwealths  carved  out 
between  the  Lakes  and  the  Ohio,  are  in  their  general  features 
well  known.  For  a  minute  study  of  their  national  relations, 
recourse  must  be  had  to  Congressional  documents.  Consider- 
ing the  fact  the  French  continued  for  many  years  to  be  a  large 
proportion  of  the  population.-  we  should  expect  to  tind  numer- 
ous and  important  references  to  them.  Such  an  expectation  is 
not  realized,  however.  The  student  of  their  part  in  the  polit- 
ical development  of  these  states  is  compelled  to  learn  from 
what  can  not  be  found  rather  than  from  what  can  be.  Such 
explicit  allusions  to  them  as  occur  in  the  Annals  of  Cong 
and  the  State  Papers  of  those  early  years  may  be  grouped 
under  two  heads.  In  the  first  place  there  are  acts  and  petitions 
relating  to  land  and  land  titles.  The  Ordinance  of  17S7  secured 
to  "the  French  and  Canadian  inhabitants  and  other  settlers  of 
the  Kaskaskies.  Saint  Vincents,  and  the  neighboring  villain--, 
who  have  heretofore  professed  themselves  citizens  of  Virginia, 
-their  laws  and  customs  now  in  force  among  them  relative  to 
the  descent  and  conveyance  of  property."3  Further  provision 
was  made  by  acts  of  Congress.  June  I'M  and  August  1'i*.  17^. 
for  confirming  in  their  possessions  such  as  had  professed 
themselves  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  any  of  them  on  or 
before  17^:5.  At  the  sain*'  time  a  tract  of  4<><»  acres  was  granted 


'Law.  ('<>!.  Hist,  of  Vi  nee  noes,  Api>..  I  V..  no.  tr.:St.  Clair  Paper.  II.. 
\m.  Stai. •  Pap"r<.  Public  Lands.  I..  111.:  Hoosi-vHt .  Winning  of  t  lu- 
ll.   M  and  I*!'.  P-ferrin^  to  Stat e  Dept.  MSS..  :jn  and  4*. 

•Then-  an-  in»  i-xact  and  reliable  statistic-  on  This  point.  I 
have  com.-  to  i  lie  conclusion  Mated  aftt-r  examining  official  list  sot'  voter- 
at  different  election-,  property-holders,  militia  companies,  and  tlic  like, 
and  comparing  them  with  statements  found  in  conteinpoiay  letter-. 
The  following  reference-,  are  ot  value:  The  Indiana  Gazetteer.  !'T. 
98,  41.',:  Hist,  of  St.  Clair  <  >..  70,  1.4.  !:;:.:  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll.  I.. 

:',4:..  VIIL.  :><».  tr.: :>:;<).  tr..  :>4:i.  and  xii..  :>"«.  tr. 
Poore,  ( 'on-lit  ut  ions.  I..  4i".». 


48 

to  each  head  of  a  family  among  such  citizens.1  There  were 
other  acts  of  Congress  and  a  long  ser.es  of  petitions  and  deci- 
sions in  regard  to  land  titles,  showing  plainly  the  effect  of  the 
French  system  of  land-tenure,  and  of  the  different  grants  under 
which  lands  were  held,  in  complicating  the  titles.  But  none  of 
these  were  of  more  importance  in  our  national  history  than  or- 
dinary private  land  bills.2 

In  the  second  place,  we  find  that  there  were  petitions  pre- 
sented by  the  French  settlers  for  the  publication  of  the  laws  in 
their  own  language.  But  these  are  of  interest  only  as  showing 
that  they  were  still  thoroughly  French  and  unable  to  under- 
stand the  legal  terms  of  the  government  under  which  they 
lived.3 

It  has  sometimes  been  held  that  the  French  were  largely 
responsible  for  the  attempts  to  fasten  slavery  upon  Illinois  and 
Indiana.  It  is  a  fact  that  slavery  was  first  introduced  by 
them.4  It  is  also  true  that  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  held  not 
to  be  retrospective,  so  far  as  they  were  concerned,  though 
many  of  them  at  first  moved  across  the  Mississippi  lest  they 
should  lose  their  slaves  under  it — and  in  short  that  the  valid- 
ity of  French  slavery  was  never  questioned. :> 

The  movement  for  the  legalization  of  slavery  in  those 
states  appears  in  the  national  records  in  the  form  of  petitions 
for  the  suspension  of  the  sixth  article  of  the  compact.  A  care- 
ful examination  of  all  the  petitions,  remonstrances,  and 
reports — so  far  as  they  are  printed  in  the  public  documents — 
discloses  not  the  slightest  reference  to  any  French  settlers  as 
such.  Two  things  may,  however,  indicate  their  presence  and 
possible  influence.  First,  there  were  petitions  from  the  Illinois 
counties,  (Randolph  and  St.  Clair).  in  which  the  French  villages 

'.Journal  of  Cong.,  IV.,  823,  ft1.,  and  SoS;  St.  Clair  Papers,  II., 
165  and  note. 

"These  decisions  about  land  titles  among  the  French  occupy  a  very 
large  space  in  the  early  State  Papers  on  Public  Lands. 

Interesting  particulars  about  land  grants  and  titles  may  be  found  in 
Col.  Hist,  of  Vincennes.  App..  IV.,  106  and  VII..  136  and  137:  Mich.  Pio- 
neer Coll.,  L,  341.  ff.;  VIII..  r,49.  ff.;  XIV..  643,  ff.;  Hist,  St.  Clair  Co.. 
74  and  7.V.  St.  Clair  Papers.  II..  104.  ff.  The  lands  granted  to  the  French 
passed  out  of  their  hands  with  great  rapidity. 

:St  (Mair  Papers,  II..  179.  Their  petitions  were  not  granted.  See 
Am.  State  Papers,  Misc.,  II.,  71. 

4By  Renault  in  1720.     See  Reynolds,  My  Own  Times,  207. 

5On  these  points.  Cf..  St.  Clair  Papers.  II..  117.  ff..  119.  176,  318.  319, 
330,  ff.:  State  Papers,  Public  Lands.  II..  103:  Scharf.  Hist,  of  St.  Louis, 


49 

were  located.  Second,  in  the  petition  to  the  Fourth  Congress, 
the  petitioners  say  they  are  sure  that  "if  the  people  then  in  the 
territory.  (/.  <-..  in  17S7).  had  been  called  upon  to  make  such  a 
compact,  they  would  never  have  consented  to  enter  into 
one  that  would  deprive  them  of  their  most  valuable  prop- 
erty."1 And  one  petition  from  the  Legislature  of  Indiana  re- 
cites that  in  17^7  slaves  --were  generally  possessed  by  the  citi- 
sens  then  inhabiting  the  country."  Of  course  we  know  that  in 
both  those  cases  the  original  settlers  were  French.  And  it  is 
quite  clear  that  their  presence  with  slaves  afforded  a  pretext 
for  the  still  further  introduction  of  slavery.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  reasons  most  urged  for  the  suspension  of  the  article 
were,  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  the  black  population  more 
diffused,  and  especially  that  it  was;  desirable  to  encourage  im- 
migration from  the  slaveholding  states. - 

All  these  attempts  failed  and  slavery  was  never  legalized 
in  any  part  of  the  territory,  except  in  so  far  as  has  been 
already  indicated.  But  an  effort  was  made  to  make  it  legal  in 
Illinois  after  her  admission  as  a  state.  The  Constitution 
of  1>1^  had  a  clause  prohibiting  slavery  "hereafter."  which  was 
so  construed  that  slaves  previously  held  wrere  not  liberated. 
Very  soon  Missouri  became  a  state  with  slavery  legalized  in  its 
borders.  Emigrants  from  the  other  slave  states  with  their  ne- 
irrne>  began  to  pass  through  Illinois  on  their  way  to  the 
new  state  and  we:v  not  slow  to  remind  the  people  of  the  former 

I..  '21-2:  Dunn.  Indiana.  2M:  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll..  XII..  :>ll.  if.  Tliis  last  is 
a  decision  of  .Judge  Woodward  to  the  effect  that  slavery  was  legal  under 
.lay's  treaty  for  previous  settlers.  Some  of  the  slaveholders  at  the  time 
of  tin-  irealy  wen-  Ilritish.  however.  T.  M.  Cooley.  Michigan.  1M2. 
Then-  was  also  a  decision  in  1*(»7  that  "except  a<  to  persons  in  the  actual 
—  ion  of  British  settlers  in  the  territory  on  the  16th  of 
June.  171M5."  "a  right  of  property  in  the  human  species  can  not  exist." 
Mich.  Pioneer  Coll..  XII..  oH).  ff.  It  is  printed  from  the  MSS.  opinion 
of  the  ( 'hief  .lust  ice  in  the  possession  of  Mich.  Hist.  Soc.  It  cannot  have 
been  true  therefoiv  in  Mich.,  however  it  may  have  been  in  other  states, 
that  slavery  was  permitted  for  the  special  benefit  of  the  French. 

'State  Papers.  Public  Land-.  I..«»i.  The  four  signers  of  this  petition 

"for  and  on  behalf  of"  the  people  of  those  counties  were  none  of  them 
French.  They  pet  it  ioned  aNo  the  »ith  and  the  9th  Congress.  Annals  6th 
<'oiiLr..  T:',").  and  '.nh  Cong..  S4S  .  iMinn  says  the  signatures  to  the 
petition  to  the  fith  Conn..  i>7o  jn  number,  were  mostly  French.  He 
refers  to  the  original  on  the  Senate  tiles.  Indiana.  - 

"Annals  «»t  h  Congress  as  above:  State  Papers.  Misc..  I..4ii7.  See  also 
speeches  of  Douglas  and  Chase  on  the  compromise  measures  of  jv:,u. 
c.,ng.  iJlobe.  :ilst  Cong.,  i  App..  :{»»4.  fl\.  and  4f,s.  tl'.  Both 

of  them  dwell  at  some  length  on  these  early  attempts  to  legali/e  slavery 
but  neither  of  them  alludes  to  the  French  settlers.  Douglas  says,  p.  369, 
that  "the  people  were  mostly  from  the  glaveholdiDg  state-,." 


50 

that  the  constitutional  enactment  concerning  slavery  alone 
prevented  their  remaining  east  of  the  Mississippi.1  Beside 
this  many  of  those  already  settled  in  Illinois  were  from  slave 
states  and  felt  that  slavery  would  be  an  advantage  to  them.- 
An  attempt  was  therefore  made  to  procure  a  Convention  for  the 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  in  the  interests  of  slavery. 
The  movement  was  precipitated  by  the  Governor's  recommen 
dation  of  a  law  for  the  liberation  of  slaves  held  by  the 
French.3  But  when  the  vote  wras  taken  St.  Clair  County 
gave  the  heaviest  vote  against  it.  and  that  vote  was  deci- 
sive.4 It  is  hardly  probable  that  the  French  settlers  voted 
against  the  measure.  Indeed,  Brown  says,  they  were  ''the  nat- 
ural allies  of  the  conventionists  and  desirous  of  their  success." 
But  I  have  found  no  evidence  that  they  inaugurated  the  move- 
ment or  that  when  it  was  once  begun  they  were  very  active  in 
its  support.  The  brief  outline  that  is  here  given  covers 
the  essential  features  of  both  the  earlier  and  the  later  move- 
ments so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  subject  in  hand.  And 
it  seems  to  indicate  that  the  presence  of  French  slavery 
was  made  a  pretext  by  later  settlers  for  pressing  a  demand  for 
the  legalization  of  the  institution.  Further,  we  must  infer — it 
is  mainly  inference — that  when  it  came  to  political  action  the 
French  acted,  so  far  as  they  overcame  their  inertia  enough  to 
act  at  all.  with  the  supporters  of  slavery.  But  "the  active  and 
dangerous  championship  of  slavey  in  the  Northwest  did 
not  come  from  the  French  inhabitants."'  Moreover,  the 
history  of  the  Kansas  struggle  suggests  the  strong  prob- 
ability that  had  there  been  no  French  slavery,  no  toleration  of 
it  as  an  inheritance  from  former  claimants  of  the  territory, 
border  states  like  Illinois  and  Indiana  would  not  have  escaped  a 
contest  upon  the  subject.  It  is  noticeable  in  this  connection 
that,  not  only  did  the  northern  states,  Michigan  and  Wisconsin. 

'Brown,  Early  Movement  in  111.  for  the  Legalization  of  Slavery.  16 
and  17.  Brown  was  a  participant  in  the  struggle  and  therefore  must 
have  known  its  causes.  See  also  Wilson.  Hist,  of  the  Rise  and  Fall 
of  the  Slave  Power,  I..  ](>3. 

'Early  Western  Days,  by  J.  T.  Kingston:  Wis.  Hist.  Coll..  295.  ff. 
See  298.  ff.,  and  313,  ff.,  for  an  account  of  the  slavery  movement.  King- 
ston's father  was  a  resident  of  Kaskaskia  at  the  time  and  lie  himself  was 
old  enough  to  have  some  personal  recollections  of  the  matter,  Cf'.,  :m. 

'Brown,  Hist.  Sketch.  20. 
4Early* Wester n  Days.  31."). 
5llinsdale.  Old  Northwest,  351. 


51 

have  no  such  struggle,  but  that  the  other  border  state  of 
th<'  Northwest.  Ohio,  was  the  object  of  desire  on  the  part 
of  slaveholders.1  Furthermore,  there  are  indications  that 
slaves  \\vn»  actually  introduced  into  Illinois  and  Indiana  by 
other  than  French  settlers.-  It  is  therefore  highly  probable 
that  the  location  of  Illinois  and  Indiana  had  much  more 
to  do  with  the  efforts  to  legalize  slavery  in  their  borders  than 
had  French  influence. 

The  local  government  of  the  Northwestern  states,  by  the 
provisions  of  the  Ordinance  was  copied  from  the  older  states, 
and  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  received  any  important  modifi- 
cations  from  French  ideas.  In  _safar  as  the  older  states  were 
Anglo-Saxon  in  their  local  institutions  these  were  also.3 

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  Todd's  appointments  to 
office  were  mostly  from  the  French  and  the  same  is  true  of  St. 
Clair's  early  appointments,  but  he  speaks  of  the  difficulty  of 
finding  persons  "in  any  degree  qualified  to  hold  the  necessary 
offices."  In  the  succeeding  years  of  his  administration  French 
names  are  less  frequent  in  the  lists  of  officers.4  In  later  his- 
tory the  records  show  surprisingly  few  French  names.  :>  And 
when  the  State  Constitutions  were  formed  there  were  hardly 

'Burnet.  Notes  on  the  Northwest.  3<iti.  They  were  Va.  officers  who 
wished  to  ivinuin  with  their  slaves  on  the  bounty  lands  in  Ohio.  The 
Ordinance  and  the  state  of  public  feeling  Ohio,  it  will  be  remembered. 
had  received  large  immigration  from  New  England—  prevented. 

-From  statistics  in  Niles'  Register.  I..  388  and  3S1).  I  find  that 
in  Knox  Co..  Ind.—  in  which  the  French  st-t  tiers  were  located  —  the 
slave>  wen-  _s  in  isiio.  13.~>  in  1810.  Now  as  the  American  population  was 
gaining.  Tic-  French  declining,  this  increase  of  slaves  could  not  be  from 
further  French  immigration.  AS  it  obviously  was  not  simply  their  nat- 
ural increase,  they  must  have  been  introduced  by  the  Americans.  Still 
further,  the  other  counties.  Clark  and  Harrison,  which  were  unsettled 
in  1*1  o.  had  1<)2  -laves  in  1810.  St.  Clair  Co..  Til.,  had  none  in  1800.  4  in 
Randolph  Co..  on  the  other  hand  had  107  in  1800,  12  in  1810. 


Howard.  Lo.-al  Cons.  Hist,  of  the  V.  S.:  Shaw.  Local  Govern- 
ment in  111..  .1.  H.  T.  Studies.  Fir-t  Serie-  :  Bemis  Local  (iovt.  in  Mich.. 
.1.  II.  l".  Studies.  Fir-t  Series  :  Spencer  Local  (Jov't  in  \Vi>.  Wis.  Hist. 
Coll..  XL.  :><>2.  If.:.  Cf..  the  Constitutions  in  Poore. 

4St.  Clair  Papers.  II..  172  for  quotation.  For  lists  of  appointment^. 
1.  131.  311.  322.  323.  324.  33n.  344.  and  foot  no!.-. 

Many  of  the  authorities  consulted  give  lists  of  Territorial  and 
early  state  officers.  Among  others.  At  water'-  Ohio:  Tut  tie's  Michigan: 
Histories  of  Randolph  and  St.  (.'lair  counties:  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll..  I.  and 
VIII.  In  pursuance  of  an  act  of  the  Midi.  Leg.,  S.  I),  liingham  com- 
piled a  volume  of  Mich.  Hiographie-.  in  l*sx.  -to  preserve  in  compact 
form  tlie  record  of  State-men.  Judges,  and  Legislators  of  Mich."  It  is 
very  noticeable  that  the  French  name-  are  very  few.  Some  that  do  ap- 
pear are  of  immigrant-  from  the  eastern  -tales,  one  at  least  being  of 
Huguenot  descent.  See  p.  223. 


any  men  of  French  parentage  in  the  conventions.1  One  French- 
man, Father  Gabriel  Richards  of  Detroit,  was  chosen  Territorial 
Delegate — in  1823 — from  Michigan,  though  singularly  enough 
his  support  was  only  in  small  part  from  the  French.  During 
his  term  he  exerted  himself  in  behalf  of  the  Indian  tribes  of  the 
Northwest  and  at  his  instance  appropriations  were  made  for 
the  opening  of  several  roads  leading  into  Detroit,  thus  hasten- 
ing the  material  development  of  the  region.  His  services  were 
so  satisfactory  that  he  would  have  been  re-elected  had  not  his 
own  countrymen  defeated  him — though  only  by  about  half 
a  dozen  votes — from  the  notion  that  a  priest  had  no  business  in 
a  legislative  body.2  This  incident  points  to  united  action 
on  the  part  of  the  French.  And  as  late  as  1831,  a  meeting  was 
held  at  Frenchtown  to  endorse  the  nomination  of  Austin 
E.  Wing  as  Delegate  to  Congress,  which  was  evidently  a  meet- 
ing of  Frenchmen  and  intended  to  influence  French  votes. y 
Various  scattered  and  indirect  allusions  tend  to  confirm 
the  idea  that  when  they  diu  rouse  themselves  to  political 
action  they  ''pulled  together."4 

But  while  the  direct  and  positive  influence  of  these  people 
was  so  slight,  they  were,  nevertheless,  a  factor  to  be  reckoned 
with.  The  great  divergences  of  their  customs  from  those  of  the 
Americans  caused  many  inconveniences.  Though  they  are  almost 
uniformly  represented  to  have  been  well  disposed  toward  the 
United  States  government  and  to  have  become  faithful  and  at- 
tached citizens,5  there  were  frequent  complaints  from  them 


irThe  Constitution  of  Indiana  is.  with  signatures,  in  Nile's  Register, 
XIII.,  85.  ff..  of  111.,  in  XV.,  93,  ff.,  and  of  Mich.,  in  XL VIII.,  345,  "ff.  It 
-is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  region  had  not  been  long  enough 
settled  by  Americans  to  have  given  men  of  mixed  parentage  to  the  con- 
ventions, even  if  intermarriages  at  an  early  day  had  been  more  frequent 
than  there  is  reason  to  suppose. 

2Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  Gabriel  Richards,  by  J.  A.  Girardin,  Mich. 
Pioneer  Coll.,  I.,  481,  ff. 

'Mich.  Pioneer  Coll.,  XII..  569  and  570.  They  say  they  look  upon 
Wing  "as  a  genuine  republican,  educated  in  the  Jeffersonian  school." 
He  was  the  man  who  defeated  Richards  at  a  former  election. 

4Much  of  the  material  upon  which  positive  conclusions  on  this  point 
might  be  based  is  either  entirely  lost  or  is  at  present  inaccessible.  It  is 
much  to  be  desired  that  local  investigators  should  hunt  out  and  make 
available  all  such  bits  of  local  history.  Until  this  is  thoroughly  done,  a 
complete  political  history  of  the  Northwest  cannot  be  written,  and  one's 
conclusions  on  some  vital  points  must  be  merely  tentative.  I  have  en- 
deavored, however,  to  weigh  carefully  all  the  evidence  within  my  reach. 
Such  as  it  is.  it  points  to  the  conclusion  I  have  indicated. 

5Cf.,  Tuttle.  Hist,  of  Mich..  114  and  115:  St.  Clair  Papers,  II.,  27.  31. 


53 

of  the  changed  order  of  things  in  legal  matters.  To  wait 
••the  slow,  tedious  progress  of  an  American  court"  was  felt  to 
be  a  hardship  by  a  people  accustomed  to  the  summary  decision 
of  a  Commandant.1  And  the  American  judges  experienced  so 
much  difficulty  from  being  unacquainted  with  the  nn/fntnf 
<lf  /V//-/X  that  Judge  Woodward  suggested  the  desirability  of  a 
small  representative  body  to  be  associated  with  them,  that  they 
might  better  understand  the  feelings  of  the  people  in  regard  to 
proposed  changes.  - 

They  were  also  easily  impressed  with  the  idea  that  some  of 
their  cherished  customs  would  be  interfered  with.  A  sugges- 
tion by  Judge  Sy mines  to  the  Detroit  Grand  Jury  that  it  was 
not  needful  to  spend  so  much  time  in  their  religious  duties  was 
supposed  by  some  to  be  an  ''attempt  to  put  down  their 
religion."  and  the  Judge  was  obliged  to  make  an  explanation 
from  the  bench.3  Taxes,  too.  were  an  abomination  to  them. 
In  1*02.  Sibley  wrote  to  Judge  Burnet:  ''Nothing  frightens 
the  Canadians  like  taxes.  They  would  prefer  to  be  treated 
like  dogs  and  kenneled  under  the  whip  of  a  tyrant,  than- 
to  contribute  to  the  support  of  a  free  government."4  And  in 
1**"H.  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  Michigan  having  petitioned 
for  a  change  to  the  next  grade  of  government,  sent  a  second 
petition  retracting  the  tirst  one,  saying  they  made  it  "without 
duly  considering  and  understanding  the  subject,"  and  that 
•'their  number  is  still  too  small  for  the  second  grade  of  govern- 
ment *  *  *  or  any  other  which  would  subject  them  to  any 
expense  in  supporting  a  Legislature."  There  are  no  signatures 
to  this  paper,  but  the  letter  accompanying  it  says:  "The  most 
numerous  class  of  the  inhabitants.  -  who  are  Canadians." 
a  iv  -totally  opposed'  to  a  change  of  Government  and  also  the 
majority  of  the  Americans.""' 

But  the  most  noticeable  peculiarity  of  the  French,  politi- 


and  .33:  Patrick  Henry's  letter  of  instructions  to  Todd.  (given  in  Hist,  of 
Randolph  Co.,  90.  ff.j)  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll.,  I..  3«;i.  VII..  :>!<>.  f..  II.,  103: 
The  Red  Hook  of  Midi..  4:jfi.  For  a  different  view,  see  Early  Western 
I  >ay<.  L)(.t<>.  ff. 

'Burnet.  Notion  tin-  Nortli\v»-<t .  i>±  footnote:  Col.  Hist,  of  Vin- 
•  •enne-.  4U:  Volney'»  View.  37:!. 

'Am.  State  Paper-.  Mi-c..  I..  4r,l.     TliN  was  in  1806. 

besOD  the  Northwest.  '2*'2.  footnote. 
4The  letter  is  in  App..  H..  of  Burnett  \ 
The  petition  and  letter  are  in  Mich.  Pioneer  Coll..  VIII.,  594,  ff. 


54 

cally  speaking,  was  their  unwilling-ness  and.  unfitness  to  assume 
the  duties  of  citizenship.  When  Volney  visited  Vincennes  in 
the  last  century,  the  Americans  there  complained  to  him  that 
the  Frejich  "understand  nothing  of  political,  civil  or  domestic 
affairs.  *  *  *  Their  first  demand  was  for  a  commanding 
officer,  and  it  was  the  most  difficult  thing  possible  to  make  them 
comprehend  anything  of  a  municipal  administration  chosen 
by  and  from  among  themselves.  Even  now  they  have  no  per- 
sons lit  for  forming  one."1  This  political  inertia  is  mentioned  by 
nearly  every  writer.  And  in  one  notable  instance  their  unwill- 
ingness to  assume  the  duties  of  self-government  retarded 
by  nearly  a  decade  the  political  advancement  of  a  common- 
wealth. In  1818  it  was  found  that  the  population  of  Michigan 
was  sufficient  for  the  second  grade  of  government,  but  the 
proposition  to  establish.it  was  voted  down  by  a  large  majority, 
and  it  was  not  till  1827  that  it  was  secured.  The  defeat  is 
ascribed  on  good  authority  to  French  votes.  v  Says  Campbell, 
speaking  of  their,  lack  of  political  training  under  a  paternal 
'government:  "Those  who  reached  middle  age  before  the  peo- 
ple of  the  Territory  became  entitled  to  vote  for  their  own 
officers  were  not  always  pleased  with  the  change,  and  some  of 
those  who  survived  to  a  very  recent  period  never  ceased 
to  sigh  for  the  good  old  days  when  the  commanding  officer  was 
the  whole  government^ 

1  View  of  Climate  and  Soil  of  the  U.  S..  373.  IT. 

'Political  Hist,  of  Mich..  392.  The  book  was  published  in  1876.  The 
author's  opportunities  for  learning  the  facts  from  those  who  were  active 
in  political  life  at  the  time  make  his  testimony  on  such  points  especially 
valuable. 


II.       THK    LOUISIANA    PURCHASE. 

now  to  the  regions  included  in  the  Louisiana 
purchase.  \v»>  tind  that  there  also  the  population  was  pre- 
dominantly French  when  the  United  States  obtained  con- 
trol.1 Prom  the  first  there  was  jealousy  between  the  French 
and  American  citizens.  Laussat.  the  prefect  who  had  handed 
over  the  government  to  the  United  States,  thought  the  errors 
of  our  government  could  hardly  have  been  worse.-  It  is 
-ible  that  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  French  was  manufac- 
tured or  at  least  fostered  by  him  and  other  officials.  At  any 
there  //v/x  considerable  dissatisfaction.  No  sooner  had 
Congress  made  provision  for  the  temporary  government  of  the 
Territory  of  New  Orleans,  than  the  people  of  the  territory  re- 
monstrated.3 They  show  in  this  remonstrance  an  unwilling- 
ness that  former  customs  and  laws  should  be  changed  as  well 
a  feeling  that  they  were  not  being  dealt  with  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  cession.  They  also  request  the  appointment  of 
officials  who  can  speak  the  French  langauge.  The  narrative 
of  events  at  that  time,  as  given  by  Gayarre.  tends  to  the  im- 
->ion  that  intriguing  politicians  of  American  birth  had 
gained  an  ascendancy  over  the  Creoles  and  were  using  this 
dissatisfaction  for  their  own  ends.  The  Territory  was  organ- 
ized under  the  terms  of  the  act,  notwithstanding  their  objec- 
tions, but  early  in  1805  by  a  further  act4  they  were  put  on 

'Clairborne  reported  to  the  Sec.  of  State,  in  1809.  that  there  were, 
- -;s  taken  in  1806,  52,998  inhabitants.  The  white  population  was 

.  "t  whom  at  least  1.3.000  were  natives  mostly  of  French  descent, 
about  3.500  natives  of  the  I*.  S..  the  rest  mostly  Europeans,  part  of  them 
French.  The  letter  is  quoted  by  Gayarre,  Louisiana  under  Am.  Domi- 
nation. 211.  ff.  Jefferson's  report  to  Cong.,  Annals,  8  Cong..  2  sess..  1506, 
<.rivc<  somewhat  different  estimates,  but  they  are  confessedly  not  exact. 

:His  report  to  the  French  government,  in  which  he  instances  some 
things  which   he   thinks  might    have  been  better  done,   is  quoted  by 

Gayarre,  7.  ff. 

remonstrance  presented  to  the  Senate  may  be  found  in  Annals, 
JS.,  AI>I...  l.V.'T.     That  to  the  House.  1H08.  ff. 

'Annals,  8  Cong..  \pp.,  1674,  ff. 


56 

nearly  the  same  footing  as  other  Territories.  Concerning  this 
change.  Claiborne  wrote:  "The  people  have  been  taught  to 
expect  greater  privileges  and  many  are  disappointed.  I 
believe,  however,  as  much  is  given  them  as  they  can  manage 
or  as  they  ought  to  be  trusted  with  until  the  limits  of  the  ceded 
territory  are  acknowledged,  the  national  attachments  of  our 
new  brothersless  wavering,  and  the  views  and  character  of 
some  influential  men  here  better  ascertained."1 

But  notwithstanding  some  complaints  and  jealousies  of  the 
Americans,  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  French  were  at 
heart  disloyal.  In  1806  Claiborne  wrote  of  them:  "My  opinion 
of  the  native  Louisianians  has  always  been  the  same;  a  majori- 
ty are  well  disposed,  and  were  it  not  for  the  calumnies  of  some 
Frenchmen  who  are  among  us,  and  the  intrigues  of  a  few  am- 
bitious, unprincipled  men  whose  native  language  is  English.  I 
do  believe  that  the  Louisianians  would  be  very  soon  the  most 
zealous  and  faithful  members  of  our  Republic."  He  adds,  how- 
evor,  "Until  a  knowledge  of  the  American  government,  laws, 
and  character  is  more  generally  diffused  among  the  people  you 
cannot  with  certainty  count  upon  their  fidelity. "- 

At  the  time  of  the  Burr  conspiracy,  the  Legislative  Coun- 
cil were  "convinced  that  it  is  not  among  the  ancient  inhabi- 
tants of  this  territory  that  proselytes  had  been  made  to  such  a 
project  and  that  there  was  no  perfidy,  no  treason  to  be  ap- 
prehended from  them.'"3 

Disloyalty  was  indeed  alleged  against  them  in  the  war  of 
1812  but  with  insufficient  reason.  Half  the  Committee  of  Pub- 
lic Defense  for  New  Orleans  in  1814  were  French.4  And  "if 
New  Orleans  and  the  Creoles  had  been  unpatriotic,  Gen.  Jack- 
son would  have  been  at  their  mercy."5 

The  same  peculiarities  that  marked  the  French  of  the 
Northwest  are  to  be  found  also  among  these  Creoles.  They 

'Quoted  from  Ex.  Jour,  by  Gayarre,  67. 
2Quoted  by  Gayarre  from  E-x.  Jour.,  159. 
"Quoted  by  Gajarj£,  ITiJv&frT 

4See  signatures  to  their  address  to  the  people,  Latour's  Hist,  of  the 
War  in  West  Florida  and  Louisiana,  App.,  XIV. 

sMaurice  Thompson,  Hist,  of  Louisiana,  215.  See  also  his  discus- 
sion of  the  whole  subject.  211,  ff.  He  speaks  of  the  services  of  French 
volunteers  and  of  French  women  who  did  brave  work  as  hospital  nurses. 
His  opinion  is  that  disloyalty  was  rather  against  state  than  U.  8.  govern- 
ment. Cf.Jngersol,  Hist,  of  the  War  in  1812,  IV.,  Chap.  II.  His  conclu- 
sions seem  to  be  substantially  the  same  as  Thompson's. 


57 

petitioned  for  the  use  of  their  own  language  by  officials,1  were 
unable  readily  to  reconcile  themselves  to  the  slow  administra- 
tion of  justice  and  to  trial  by  jury  and  great  difficulties  arose 
in  the  adjustment  of  land  titles.'-  The  same  unwillingness  to 
be  taxed  and  the  same  indifference  to  the  right  of  citizenship 
may  be  seen  also.  In  1808  the  Legislative  Council  said  that 
the  people  i%felt  the  imposition  of  taxes  as  a  great  hardship." 
And  a  year  later  Claiborne  urged  that  feeling  and  their  neglect 
of  political  duties  as  reasons  why  they  should  not  assume  the 
task  of  self-government.  He  quotes  from  4ia  very  respectable 
and  influential  planter"  that  "the  taxes  already  imposed  by 
the  Territorial  government  were  as  great  as  the  people  could 
conveniently  meet  and  that  no  change  was  for  the  present  de- 
sirable." As  to  their  political  inactivity,  he  instances  cases 
where  less  than  thirty  out  of  two  hundred  voters  exercised  the 
right  of  suffrage,  and  says  "it  has  seldom  happened  that  at 
any  election,  however  contested,  a  majority  of  the  voters  have 
attended  the  polls."3 

The  question  whether  the  ordinance  of  1787  was  applicable 
to  Louisiana  came  up  in  1805  and  agents  for  the  inhabitants 
argued  that  it  was  not.4  Its  principles  must  have  been  par- 
ticularly distasteful  to  them.  But  the  enabling  act  of  1811  re- 
quired some  of  the  provisions,  which  the  ordinance  had 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  Northwest,  to  be  incorporated  in 
the  Constitution;  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  trial  by  jury  in  criminal  cases,  and  the  privi- 
lege Of  habeas  m/ym.s. :> 

Of  the  forty  members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  in 
1812,  twenty- two  were  of  French  origin;  and  of  the  seven  who 
drafted  the  Constitution,  four  were  French,  if  the  indications 
of  name  can  be  trusted.6  Some  slight  traces  of  their  probable 

'See  remonstrance  before  alluded  to  and  Am.  State  Papers,  Misc.. 
II..  :»1  and  :>2. 

'Breckenridge,  Views  of  Louisiana,  143  and  144.  His  book,  pub- 
lished in  1H14.  was  founded  on  observations  made  in  his  own  travels. 
This  Chap..  VI.,  is  also  printed  in  Niles'  Reg.,  I.,  243,  ff.,  so  that  it  must 
have  been  written  as  early  as  1811.  On  land  titles  see  State  Papers,  Pub- 
lic Lands,  II. 

'These  various  quotations  may  be  found  in  Gayarre,  192,  211,  ff. 
4State  Papers,  Misc.,  I.,  418. 

*Poore,  I.,  699.  For  opinions  as  to  their  untitness  for  self  govern- 
ment, see  debates  in  Cong,  in  1804,  Benton's  Abr.,  III. 

•Marbois,  Hist,  of  Louisiana,  339,  and  Gayarre,  272. 


58 

influence  appear  in  the  Constitution,  noticeably  the  large  pro- 
perty qualifications  for  some  official  positions,  and  the  exclu- 
sion from  office  of  any  "clergyman,  priest  or  teacher  of  any 
religious  persuasion,  society,  or  sect.''1  That  in  general 
features  it  should  be  like  those  of  the  older  states,  was  m>r<>s 
sary  to  secure  the  assent  of  Congress. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Louisiana  Code  is  founded  largely 
on  the  Code  Napoleon.  But  the  Common  Law  is  so  univer- 
sally accepted  in  the  United  States  that,  while  the  Civil  Law 
has  to  be  recognized  in  suits  concerning  Louisiana,  it  has  had 
no  appreciable  effect  on  the  jurisprudence  of  the  country  at 
large.2 

A  majority  of  the  members  selected  for  the  legislative  Coun- 
cil of  the  early  Territorial  government  were  taken  from  among 
the  Creoles  and  in  the  early  history  of  the  state  they  had  the 
principal  voice  in  the  towns  and  a  majority  in  the  legislature.3 
Out  of  the  first  eight  governors,  three  were  of  French  origin. 
As  late  as  1859  there  had  been  but  one  gubernatorial  election 
in  which  at  least  one  of  the  candidates  was  not  a  Frenchman.4 
But  the  only  man  of  mark  among  these  early  officials  was 
Francois  Xavier  Martin,  the.  jurist  and  historian. 

The  Frenchmen  of  the  Northwest  and  the  Mississippi  val- 
ley then  were,  as  a  rule,  patriotic  and  peaceable  citizens.5 
They  have  added  numerous  picturesque  features  to  our  history 
and  our  landscapes.  .  They  still  furnish  us  bits  of  dreamy 
European  and  mediaeval  life  in  the  midst  of  our  wide-awake, 
progressive,  nineteenth  century,  American  civilization.  The 
New  Orleans  of  today  is  a  foreign  and  an  old-time  city,  while 
mediaeval  France  yet  lingers  in  the  Illinois  country.  Little 
more  than  a  decade  since,  a  traveler  to  that  region  said  of  Kas- 
kaskia,  there  "is  little  to  disturb  the  impression  that  it  is  still 
the  Kaskaskia_of  the  olden  time,"  and  of  Prairie  du  Rocher, 

'Poore,  I.,  702. 

2Some  account  of  the  "Digest  of  Civil  Laws"  of  1808  and  some  inter- 
esting particulars  of  the  growth  of  jurisprudence  may  be  found  in 
Louisiana  Hist.  Coll.,  Part  II.,  22-25.  But  for  the  material  on  which  this 
paragraph  is  founded  I  am  especially  indebted  to  Hon.  W.  S.  Pattee,  of 
the  Law  School  of  the  Univ.  of  Minn.,  who 'kindly  gave  me  information 
not  accessible  in  print. 

"Gayarre.  19  and  68,  Breckenridge,  139;  Martin  in  a  letter  of  July  22, 
1818,  an  extract  from  which  is  given  in  Hist.  Mag.,  VIII.,  241,  ff. 

4See  table  of  popular  votes  for  Gov..  1812-1864,  Hist.  Mag.,  IX.,  373. 
5Reynolds,   My  Own  Times,  79,  says  they  were  never  intemperate  in 


59 

••It  is  as  if  a  piece  of  old  Prance  had  been  transplanted  to  the 
Mississippi  a  century  since  and  forgotten;  or  as  if  a  stratum  of 
the  early  French  settlements  at  the  Illinois  a  hundred  years 
ago  or  more  had  sunk  down  below  the  reach  of  time  and 
change,  and  with  its  ways  and  customs  and  people  still  intact 
had  still  pursued  its  former  life  unmindful  of  the  busy  nine- 
teenth century  on  the  uplands  above  its  head."1 

Again  the  records  of  early  explorations  and  early  history 
that  have  come  to  us  through  them  are  of  much  value.  Much 
of  our  knowledge  of  Indian  habits  and  language  are  from  the 
same  sources.  And  when  the  minute  details  of  local  history 
in  the  Northwest  and  the  Mississippi  valley  have  been  fully 
investigated,  it  will  probably  be  found  that  many  episodes  in 
tli  at  history  were  due  to  their  presence,  their  customs,  or 
their  idioms  of  language — as  was  the  case  with  the  Iowa  and 
Missouri  boundary  war.  But  their  contribution,  in  any  large 
sense,  to  the  political  development  of  those  regions  can  not 
be  reckoned  of  vital  importance.  Their  political  activity—- 
what there  was  of  it — was  mainly  in  the  line  of  opposition  to 
the  unfamiliar  ideas  of  an  advancing  civilization.  At  some 
points  they  may  have  stayed  for  a  little  time — and  only  for  a 
little  time — the  chariot  wheels  of  progress.  But  for  that  fact, 
tuey  might  almost  be  omitted  in  writing  the  political  history 
of  our  country. 


drink,  that  They  rarely  engaged  in  common  broils  or  personal  combats, 
and  that  no  Creole  was  ever  hung  or  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary  in 
111.  For  interesting  particulars  about  their  customs,  see  Chaps.  VIII. 
and  XII..  of  his  book:  Monnette.  Hist,  of  the  Miss.  Valley.  I..  1*1.  ff.: 
Burner.  Nor«-s  on  the  Northwest.  2*1.  If.  footnote:  Reynolds'  Pioneer 
Hist,  of  111.:  Maria  Hamlin.  Legends  of  Le  Detroit:  Old"  French  Tradi- 
tions -am»'  author  :  Mich.  Coll..  IV..  To.  f.  Wallace.  Illinois  and  Louisi- 
ana under  Frerch  Rule.  la>t  chanter:  Scharf,  Hist,  of  St.  Louis.  Chap. 
XII.  I  consider  the  last  the  mo<t  satisfactory  account. 

'Illinois  in  the  Eighteenth  Century.  21  and  4^>. 


COMPARISON  AND  CONCLUSION. 

«jrn  reviewing  and  comparing  the  facts  adduced  in  the  forego- 
II  ing  study,  the  two  main  lines  of  French  immigration  to 

this  country  present  a  striking  contrast.  The  Huguenot 
— as  a  Huguenot,  a  Frenchman — is  and  has  been  for  many  a 
decade  practically  forgotten.1  His  descendants  speak  the  same 
language  as  the  descendants  of  the  Puritan  and  the  Cavalier. 
They  mingle  with  them  in  the  mart,  the  Senate  House,  and  the 
place  of  worship,  and  are  practically  undistinguishable  from 
them.2  No  peculiarity  of  costume  or  manner  calls  attention  to 
them  as  a  people  of  alien  race.  The  worthy  deeds  of  their  Rev- 
olutionary ancestors  are  reckoned  to  the  credit  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race,  and  the  very  Constitution  that  those  ancestor  did 
so  much  to  fashion  and  the  national  career  that  owed  so  much 
of  its  early  success  to  their  guidance  are  vaunted  as  the  pecu- 
liar glories  of  the  same  race.  Thatjour  debt  to  the  Huguenots 
is  a  great  one  is  a  fact  that  does  not  lie  upon  the  surface 
history.  It  is  indeed  only  beginning  to  be  recognized. 

The  traveller  through  the  Atlantic  states  must  'needs  look 
carefully  to  find  traces  of  these  early  French  immigrants;  the 
traveller  in  certain  parts  of  the  Northwest  and  of  Louisiana 
must  needs  close  his  eyes,  if  he  would  forget  the  fact  of  French 
occupancy. 

But  the  peculiar  feature  of  the  contrast  is,  that  the  Hugue- 
not who  seems  to  have  disappeared  and  left  no  trace  behind 
him,  proves  on  careful  investigation  to  have  made  a  mighty 
impress  upon  our  national  history,  the  records  of  which 
fill  many  of  the  most  valuable  and  fascinating  pages  of  our 
public  documents;  while  the  Frenchman  of  the  Northwest, 

'The  organizotion  of  the  Huguenot  Soc.  and  the  researches  of  indi- 
viduals have  done  much  of  late  years  to  call  them  to  mind,  but  for  most 
people,  the  fact  stated  in  the  text  is  doubtless  still  true. 

"There  are  still  a  few  Huguenot  churches  in  the  U.  S.,  the  most  im- 
portant being  in  N.  Y.  city  and  in  Charleston,  S.  Car.  For  some  particu- 
lars, see  Introd.  to  Vol.  I.  of  Huguenot  Coll.  and  Bi-Centenary  Com- 
memoration, 8,  51,  63,  65,  and  68.  Their  very  existence  is  probably 
unknown  to  the  majority  of  well  informed  people. 


61 

whose  picturesque  and  romantic  memorials  are  so  abundant, 
has  left  no  enduring  mark  and  the  pages  of  the  national 
records  in  which  he  appears  are  of  little  value  in  the  study  of 
our  growth  into  a  nation. 

It  is  a  pertinent  and  perhaps  a  timely  question,  why  this 
difference?  Why  should  people  of  the  same  race,  coming 
to  the  new  world  at  so  nearly  the  same  time,  differ  so  widely  in 
their  influence  upon  the  young  nation  of  which  they  became  a 
part? 

To  some  the  off-hand,  easy  answer  may  seem  to  be  the  true 
one.  "'The  Huguenot  was  Protestant,  therefore  progressive; 
the  other  was  Catholic,  therefore  reactionary."  But  an  answer 
based  on  hasty  generalization  and  religious  prejudice  cannot  be 
accepted  as  final;  especially  as  on  the  surface  of  history  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  moving  force  of  Hamilton's  career,  for 
instance,  was  an  absorbing  devotion  to  Protestantism. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  can  be  no  question  that  the 
Protestant  Reformation  in  Prance  was  a  mighty  link  in 
the  chain  of  causes  that  have  led  to  our  national  greatness. 
The  Huguenots  were  tested  and  sifted  by  fierce  religious  perse- 
cutions, and  when  at  last  the  infamous  Revocation  drove  them 
from  their  native  land,  it  was  verily  a  chosen  remnant  that 
sought  these  western  wilds%  Let  Pilgrim  or  Puritan  boas  t — as 
he  may — of  the  zeal  for  religious  freedom  that  exiled  him  from 
home,  the  Huguenot  can  point  to  yet  a  nobler  record  of 
unswerving  devotion  to  principle*) 

Yet  further,  it  was  not  true,  as  it  has  been  so  often 
elsewhere  from  the  days  of  the  primitive  church  onward,  that 
4 'not  many  wise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not 
many  noble  were  called;"  the  best  blood  of  France  flowed 
in  the  veins  of  the  original  Huguenots,  and  when  they  came  to 
America,  "they  brought  with  them  *  *  an  ancestral  influ- 
ence of  education,  refinement,  and  skillful  enterprise,  as  well 
as  of  religious  fidelity."1 

Hence  if  the  doctrine  of  heredity  be  admitted  to  have  any 
force,  we  may  partly  understand  how  the  graceful  diplomat  up- 
holding his  country's  honor  with  skillful  tact  at  a  court  where 
all  was  chaos  should  be  of  a  race  celebrated  for  its  ease 


'R.  S.  Storrs.  The  Early  American  Spirit  and  the  Genesis  of  it.  51; 
see,  also,  an  eloquent  passage  in  Schaff  's  address  on  the  Hist,  of  the 
Edict  of  Naiitc<.  Huguenot  Proceedings,  II.,  101.  ff  ,  and  another  in 
II.  M.  liaird'*  addivss  at  the  Bi-Centenary,  p.  38. 


62 

and  polish  of  manners;  how  the  founder  of  our  financial  pros- 
perity should  be  descended  from  a  race  of  people  renowned  for 
their  success  in  amassing  wealth;  and  above  all  how  the  suc- 
.cessful  statesman  who  carried  his  honor  so  unsullied  through 
all  his  political  life  that  "when  the  spotless  robe  of  the  judicial 
ermine  fell  upon  him,  it  touched  nothing  less  spotless 
than  itself,"  should  trace  his  ancestry  to  a  refugee  to 
whom  freedom  of  conscience  and  loyalty  to  principle  were  even 
dearer  than  was  the  historic  city  so  beloved  by  every  Protes- 
tant in  Prance. 

Their  influence  has  been  altogether  disproportioned  to 
their  numbers,  for  in  "determining  the  character  of  a  country, 
a  hundred  selected  men  and  women  are  more  potent  than  a 
thousand  men  and  women  taken  at  random."1 

The  French  of  the  Northwest  and  the  Mississippi  valley 
were  of  an  altogether  different  type  and  their  occupancy  of  the 
country  was  due  to  far  other  causes.  Whether  from  the  lower 
strata  of  society,  or  as  in  some  cases  from  the  higher  grades, 
they  were  uneducated  and  unused  to  self-government.  They 
were  in  general  well  disposed,  cheerful,  contented,  often  indus- 
trious and  enterprising  in  business  ventures.  Yet  on  the  whole, 
their  virtues  were  those  of  the  slave  rather  than  of  the 
freeman.  "An  ignorant  population,  sprung  from  a  brave  and 
active  race,  but  trained  to  subjection  and  dependence  through 
centuries  of  feudal  and  monarchical  despotism,  was  planted  in 
the  wilderness  by  the  hand  of  authority  and  told  to -grow  and 
flourish."2  They  could  obey  unquestioningly  the  command 
of  priest  or  governor.  To  think,  to  decide  for  themselves,  and 
then  to  follow  loyally,  if  need  be  heroically,  the  dictates 
of  reason  and  of  conscience  was  entirely  foreign  to  their  habits. 

In  these  contrasting  types  of  character  is  to  be  found  the 
first  and  probably  the  most  potent  cause  of  the  remarkable 
contrast  in  their  influence  on  American  history.  That  a  people 
brave,  refined,  intelligent,  loyal  to  principle,  sifted  by  long  and 
fierce  persecutions,  fleeing  to  the  New  World  solely  that  they 
might  be  free  to  follow  the  very  highest  ideals,  should  have 

'Fiske's  Beginnings  of  New  England,  47. 

To  understand  fully  the  influence  of  the  Huguenots  on  Am.  history 
one  must  know  something  of  their  own  early  history  and  heroic  struggles. 
In  this  view,  The  Rise  of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  and  The  Huguenots 
and  Henry  of  Navarre,  by  Prof.  H.  M.  Baird,  are  valuable  contributions 
to  American  History. 

Turkman,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  394. 


63 

proved  one  of  the  most  powerful  factors  in  national 
development  is  not  at  all  surprising.  That  a  peo- 
ple of  a  low  grade  of  inte!  ligence  and  wholly  un- 
trained in  the  art  of  self -government,  should  have  neither  the 
desire  nor  the  ability  to  be  an  active  force  in  nation-building,  is 
also  not  surprising.  So  far  as  these  types  of  character  were 
determined  by  differences  of  religion,  so  far  has  the  Protes- 
tantism of  the  one.  the  Catholicism  of  the  other  contributed  to 
the  result. 

But  while  difference  of  character  counts  for  so  much  in  the 
solution  of  the  problem,  another  factor  must  also  be  reckoned 
with,  namely:  the  different  circumstances  under  which  these 
two  off-shoots  from  the  French  race  entered  into  our  national 
life.  The  Huguenot  became  an  American  citizen  before  the 
••formative  period"  of  our  history.  The  time  and  the  circum- 
stances favored  his  throwing  himself  as  a  vitalizing  force  into 
the  political  life  that  was  just  beginning  to  be.  The  French- 
man of  the  Northwest  became  an  American  citizen  by  the 
issues  of  war.  and  the  Louisiana  Creole  by  purchase.  In  both 
cases,  an  already  organized  government  extended  its  sway  over 
him.  He  was  not  asked  nor  expected  \',t  take  part  in  it.  except 
under  established  conditions,  and  his  rem:>nstran;-,>>  and  peti- 
tions were,  as  a  rule,  dismissed  or  unfavorably  reported  on.  It 
was  the  intention  to  arrange  matters  for  all  newly  acquired  ter- 
ritory in  accordance  with  principles  previously  determined. 
Habituated  to  altogether  different  methods  of  jrovernment.  un- 
familiar with  democratic  ideas,  untrained  in  political  thinking, 
the  new  citizen  had  small  chance  to  make  himself  felt. 

To  character,  then,  must  be  added  opportunity  as  having 
favored  the  political  influence  of  the  Huguenot.  To  lack 
of  opportunity  may  be  attributed  in  some  degree  the  want  of 
political  influence  on  the  part  of  the  French  Catholic. 

Vet  another  element  must  be  noted  an  element,  however, 
that  is  pei-haps  the  resultant  <>f  the  two  already  mentioned 
the  complete  and  rapid  absorption  of  the  Huguenot  in  the  mass 
of  the  American  people.  -Sooner  than  any  other,  and  more 
completely,  they  became  American  in  speech,  conviction,  and 
habits  of  thought."1  This  complete  absorption,  which  has 
tended  to  make  them  forgotten  as  Huguenots  while  they  are 


.   Wh;ii    Americanism    Mc;n^.   F<-nnn.  Apr..  1-xm.  p.  2<  5. 
Cf.  address  of  Richard  Olucy  in  Hi-(  Vntmary  Co  iiiin'iiKiralioii.  S2,  ff. 


64 

gratefully  remembered  as  American  patriots  and  statesmen, 
probably  contributed  very  largely  to  their  political  influence. 
Because  they  were  so  early  and  so  completely  Americanized, 
there  was  no  occasion  for  race  jealousies  and  antipathies;  they 
had  no  French  notions  to  import  into  governmental  methods; 
they  did  not  act  unitedly  as  a  faction  but  individually  as 
citizens  devoted  to  the  best  interests  of  their  adopted  country. 
That  thus  acting,  the  leading  men  among  them — almost  with- 
out exception — wrorked  for  the  same  ends,  and  especially  for 
greater  centralization  of  government  points  strongly  in  the  di- 
rection of  an  inherited  race  tendency. 

The  Canadian  and  the  Creole  on  the  other  hand,  were  not 
absorbed  nor  assimilated.  Even  after  the  influx  of  American 
immigrants  intermarriages  were  for  a  long  time  infrequent. 
Indeed  their  assimilation  was  more  often  with  the  Red  Man 
than  with  other  European  settlers.  Slowly  and  unwillingly 
they  assumed  the  rights  and  duties  of  American  citizens,  cling- 
ing all  the  while  tenaciously  to  their  own  customs  and  language. 
Had  they  been  a  more  aggressive  people  politically  than  they 
were,  they  could  not  thus  as  aliens  have  forced  the  ideas  of  a 
decadent  old-world  despotism  upon  a  vigorous  and  growing 
young  nation. 

Many  minor  causes  were  doubtless  contributory  to  the  re- 
sult; more  extended  investigations  may  yet  reveal  other  impor- 
tant causes;  but  the  facts  at  present  accessible  emphasize  these 
three,  difference  in  character,  in  opportunity  and  in  ability  to 
be  assimilated.  And  they  are  amply  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  observed  differences  in  result. 

To  the  Canadian  and  the  Creole,  we  owe  gratitude  for 
patriotic  services;  for  much  of  the  material  development  of  the 
regions  that  they  were  the  first  white  men  to  enter;  for  a  great 
part  of  the  romance  of  western  history;  and  for  picturesque 
survivals:  but  for  political  development,  almost  nothing. 

To  the  Huguenot  we  must  be  grateful,  that  while  bringing 
no  new  political  inventions,  he  brought  himself,  and  gave  him- 
self with  all  his  heritage  of  character  and  ability  to  the 
new  nation,  working  writh  energy,  persistence,  and  success  to 
make  the  best  political  ideas  of  the  age  supreme  in  its  Consti- 
tution and  potent  in  its  development. 


*  *  *  * 

#  * 


Of   late   years   we   are   having  another  influx  of  French 


65 

immigrants,  this  time  threatening  to  overwhelm  Puritan  New 
England  with  a  Catholic  population  from  across  the  Canadian 
borders.  It  is  yet  too  soon  to  determine  the  effect  of  this  mi- 
gration, but  it  has  caused  grave  concern  to  many  observers. 
It  is  but  a  part  of  the  general  problem  of  foreign  immigration 
—than  which  no  other  question  is  of  more  vital  importance. 
The  facts  herewith  presented  point  by  an  easy  inference 
to  a  speedy  and  complete  transformation  of  the  immigrant 
from  an  alien  into  an  American  with  American  habits  of 
thought,  as  one  of  the  essential  principles  for  its  solution. 


APPENDIX. 

GENEALOGICAL,  AND  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTES. 

BAYAKD. — The  Pedigree  of  the  American  family  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  traced  to  Balthazar  Bayard,  whose  ances- 
tors fled  from  Dauphine  about  the  time  of  the  Massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew.  There  were  also  families  of  the  name  in  Cham- 
pagne. Languedoc.  and  Flanders. 

Cf.  Am.  Ancestry,  III.,  79.  and  Mag.  of  Am.  Hist..  XVII. 
The  latter  is  an  answer  to  the  doubt  raised  by  Arthur 
Richmond  in  N.  Am.  Review,  Jan.  1885,  as  to  the  Huguenot 
ancestry  of  the  family. 

BENEZET. — Anthony  Benezet  was  born  in  St.  Q.ientin  in 
1713.  The  family  fled  from  persecution  to  Holland.  Thence 
they  went  to  London  and  afterwards  to  Philadelphia.  Anthony 
joined  the  Quakers  at  the  age  of  14.  His  life  was  mostly  spent 
in  religious  and  philanthropic  labors. 

See  brief  biography  prefixed  to  Views  on  Slavery. 

BREVARD. — Ephraim  Brevard  is  generally  admitted  to 
have  been  of  Huguenot  descent,  but  I  cannot  trace  his  ancestry. 
He  was  born  in  Maryland  in  1744;  went  to  N.  Carolina  when 
about  4  years  of  age;  graduated  at  Princeton  in  1768;  was  later 
a  surgeon  in  the  army;  was  made  prisoner  at  the  surrender  of 
Charleston  and  died  from  the  effects  of  his  imprisonment.  He 
was  secretary  of  the  Mechlinburg  Convention,  and  the  resolu- 
tions differed  but  slightly  from  his  draft. 

Hunter,  Sketches  of  Western  Life  in  North  Carolina., 
47  and  48. 

BOUDINOT. — A  family  of  this  name  came  to  Mass.  The 
name  is  found  in  the  records  of  Oxford.  They  probably  moved 
to  one  of  the  middle  states.  The  Elias  Boudinot  known  to 
American  history  was  born  in  Philadelphia.  Apr.  21,  1740.  His 
grand-father,  also  named  Elias,  came  to  America  in  1686. 

Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  XXII.,  51;  Sketch  of  Elias 
Boudinot  by  Helen  Boudinot  Stryker,  Penn.  Mag.  III.,  191. 

BOWDOIN. — Pierre  Bowdoin,  said  to  have  been  a  physician 
of  Rochelle.  fled  to  America  at  the  time  of  the  Revocation  and 
settled  in  Casco.  Maine,  probably  in  1687.  His  grand-son, 
James,  was  the  distinguished  Governor  of  Mass.  Gov.  Bow- 
doin's  daughter,  Elizabeth,  married  Sir  Wm.  Temple,  and  her 
daughter  Elizabeth  married  Thos.  L.  Winthrop,  from  whom 
Robt.  Winthrop  was  descended.  The  direct  line  ended  with 
Gov.  Bowdoin's  son  James — the  founder  of  Bowdoin  Col. — but 


67 

some  of  the  descendants  of  his  sister  Elizabeth  assumed  the 
name. 

See  Mass.  Hist.  Soc..  Coll.,  XXV..  49,  50,  and  78; 
New  Eng.  Hist,  and  Gen.  Reg.,  X..  78,  and  VIII..  '247. 

There  were  Bowdoins  in  Virginia,  probably  descended 
from  John  Bowdoin.  a  brother  of  James,  who  moved  to  that 
state  about  17<>f».  (Va.  Hist.  Coll.,  Vol.  V..  p.  XL.  footnote.) 

FAXEUIL. — Three  brothers,  Andrew.  Benjamin,  and  John 
Faneuil.  settled  in  Boston  as  early  as  UiUU.  John  returned  to 
France.  Peter,  the  donor  of  Faneuil  Hall,  was  a  son  of  Benja- 
min, but  received  his  lar*re  fortune  from  his  uncle  Andrew. 

Cf.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Col  XXII..  53.  Mem.  Hist,  of  Boston, 
II..  r>."4:  and  the  chapter  on  "The  French  Protestants  of  Bos- 
ton" in  the  latter  volume. 

GALLATIN. — Schaff,  (Huguenot  Proceedings.  I. .-95),  and 
other  writers  sp.>ak  of  Albert  Gallalin  as  of  Huguenot  descent. 
The  truth  seems  to  be  that  the  family,  though  Protestant  and 
close  allies  of  Calvin,  were  hardly  refugees  for  the  faith.  They 
moved  from  Savoy  to  Geneva  in  1510. 

See  Apn.  to  H.  Adams'  edition  of  his  Writings  and  Adam^1 
Life  of  Gal  latin.  Book  I. 

GALLAUDET. — Thomas  Hopkins  Gallaudet.  the  founder  of 
the  first  institution  in  America  for  the  education  of  deaf-mutes, 

descended  from  Pierre  Elise  Gallaudet — one  of  the  earliest 
settlers  of  New  Rochelle — whose  wife.  Margaret  Crezot,  was 
a  descendant  of  the  94th  Doge  of  Venice.  For  interesting  par- 
ticulars concerning  him  and  his  work,  see  Bi-Centenary  Com- 
memoration. 74.  If. 

GRATIOT. — Charles  Gratiot  was  the  son  of  Huguenot 
parents  who  ned  from  La  Rochelle  on  the  Revocation.  They 
took  up  their  residence  at  Lausanne.  Switzerland,  where 
Charles  was  born  in  1758.  He  received  a  mercantile  education 
in  London  and  came  while  quite  young  to  Canada  to  engage  in 
the  fur  trade.  In  1774  he  settled  in  Cahokia.  After  the  Revo- 
lution he  moved  to  St.  Louis,  where  he  married  a  daughter  of 
Pierre  Choteau.  Henry  Gratiot..  his  son.  was  the  father  of 
Mrs.  E.  B.  Washburne.' 

See  Wis.  Hist.  Coll..  Vol.  X.,  articles  by  Hon.  E.  B.  Wash- 
burne and  Mrs.  Adele  Gratiot:  Scharf.  Hist,  of  St.  Louis. 
I.  :>7;  Billon,  Annals  of  St.  Louis.  214.  if. 

HAMILTON. — Alexander  Hamilton  was  born  in  the  West 
Indies  and  came  at  an  early  age  to  X.  Y.  There  is  some 
obscurity  about  his  parentage,  but  I  am  not  aware  that  anyone 
has  'iously  questioned  his  descent  on  his  mother's  side 

from  a  Huguenot  family  who  took  refuge  in  the  West  Indies. 
A  discussion  of  his  ancestry  may  be  found  in  Lodge's  Life  of 
Hamilton.  App.  A. 

JAY. — Augustus  Jay,  one  of  the  numerous  exiles  from  the 


68 

city  of  Rochelle,  settled  in  New  York  in  1697.  He  married  a 
daughter  of  Balthazar  Bayard.  Their  son,  Peter,  married 
a  daughter  of  Jacobus  Van  Courtland,  by  whom  he  had  ten 
children.  John  was  the  eighth,  born  in  N.  Y.,  Dec.  12,  1745. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  none  of  his  ancestors  had  intermarried 
with  the  English,  so  that  he  was  of  French  and  Dutch  blood. 
See  Jay's  Jay,  Chap.  I. 

MARION. — The  ancestors  of  Francis  Marion  came  from  La 
Chaume.  C.  W.  Baird,  (II.,  52  and  footnote),  gives  this  fact,  re- 
ferring to  Liste  de  Francois  et  Suisses  refugiez  en  Caroline. 
See  also  Mass.  Hist.  Coll.  XXII.,  56. 

LAURENS. — The  ancestors  of  Henry  Laurens  were  French 
Protestant  Refugees  who  first  settled  in  N.  Y.  and  moved 
thence  to  Charleston. 

See  "Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  XXII. ,  55. 

MANIGAULT. — Gabriel  Manigault  wras  descended  from  Pe- 
ter Manigault.  who  went  from  Rochelle  to  England  in  1685  and 
came  to  Carolina  about  1696.  See  Am.  Ancestry.  V.  85,  ft', 
and  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  XXII,  55. 

A  Dr.  Gabriel  Manigault.  presumably  a  direct  descendant, 
is  one  of  the  Ex.  Com.  of  the  S.  Car.  Huguenot  Soc. 

See  Transactions,  No.  3. 

MORRIS. — The  mother  of  Gouverneur  Morris  was  one  of 
the  Huguenot  Gouverneurs  who  settted  in  N.  Y.  after  the  re- 
vocation of  the  Edict  of  Nantes. 

See  Roosevelt's  Life  of  Morris,  2. 

REVERE. — The  Revere  or  Rivier  family  was  one  of  the  old- 
est in  Europe — may  be  traced,  perhaps  to  the  time  of  the  first 
crusade.  They  lived  in  Dauphine  and  had  large  estates  and 
many  titles  of  nobility.  Paul  Revere  was  the  son  of  Apollos, 
a  Huguenot  who  went  from  France  to  the  island  of  Guern- 
sey and  thence  to  Boston. 

See  Am.  Ancestry,  V.  41,  and  Goss's  Life  of  Revere, 
Chap.  I.  Goss  also  has  an  article  on  Revere  in  Mag.  of  Am. 
Hist.,  Jan.  1886. 

SEVIER. — John  Sevier  came  of  a  Huguenot  family  named 
Xavier.  though  his  immediate  ancestors  were  from  England. 

See  Phelan,  Hist,  of  Tenn..  p.  72,  and  Roosevelt,  Winning 
of  the  West,  I.,' 180-183. 

TYLER. — Anne  Contesse,  a  Huguenot,  was  the  mother  of 
Gov.  Tyler  and  the  grandmother  of  Pres.  Tyler. 

See  Va.  Hist.,  Coll.  V.,  Introd. 

VINCENT. — The  pedigree  of  Bishop  Vincent  may  be  found 
in  Am.  Ancestry,  VIII,  25.  It  is  traced  to  a  refugee  who  set- 
tled in  New  Jersey. 

WHITTIER. — The  poet  Whittier's  maternal  grandmother 
was  Sarah  Greenleaf.  The  Greenleaf  family  were  from 


69 

France,  the  name  being  originally  Peuillevert.  which  was 
translated  as  so  many  other  Huguenot  names  have  been  into 
English. 

See  Linton's  Life  of  Whittier  and  Bi-Centenary  Com.  70. 

It  is  a  somewhat  carious  fact  that  the  first  white  men  in 
Minn.,  so  far  as  can  be  learned,  were  two  Huguenots  engaged 
in  the  fur  trade,  Medard  Chouart,  known  as  Sieur  Grosel- 
liers,  and  Pierre  d'Esprit.  known  as  Sieur  Radisson. 

See  Rev.  E.   D.  Neill's  Hist,  of  the  upper  Miss.  Valley. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Adams.  John,  Life  and  works.     C.  P.  Adams;  Boston,  1856. 
American  Ancestry,   Hughes,  T.  P. ;  Albany,   1887-1893. 

American    Biography,  Cyclopedia  of;  edited  by  J.   G.   Wilson 
and  John  Fiske,  New  York,   1887. 

American  Biography,  National  Cyclopedia  of;  N.  Y.  1892. 
American  Genealogy,  J.  B.   Holgate;  Albany,  1848. 

American    spirit.    The    Early   and    the    Genesis  of    it;  R.   S. 
Storrs,  D.  D.,  N.  Y.,  1878. 

American  Conflict,  The,  Horace  Greeley;  Hartford,  1864. 

American  Archives;  Washington,  1833-1837. 

American  State  Papers,  Washington. 

Annals  of  Congress,  Washington. 

Annals  of  America,  Abiel  Holmes;  Cambridge,   1829. 

Atlantic  Monthly,  Vols.  LV.-LVII. 

Boston,     Memorial    History    of,    edited     by    Justin     Winsor, 
Boston,  1882. 

Bowdoin,    James,    A   Memorial   Address   by  R.    C.  Winthrop; 
Boston,  1849. 

Buffalo  Historical  Soc.,  Publications  1879  and  1882. 

Canada,    Tne     Old     Regime     in,    Francis   Parkman;    Boston, 

1874. 

Chief  Justices,    Lives   and  Times   of,    Henry   Flanders;  Phil- 
adelphia. 1881. 

Constitution,  History  of  the,  Geo.  T.  Curtis;  N.  Y.,  1854. 

Constitutions,    The    Federal   and    State,    etc.,    B.    F.     Poore; 
Washington,  1878. 

Constitutional   History   of   the   United   States,    H.   von  Hoist; 
Chicago,   1889. 

Congressional  Documents,  Washington. 

Critical  Period   of    American    History,    John    Fiske,     Boston 

1892. 

Debates     in     Congress,    Abridgement     of,     T.     H.     Benton; 

N.   Y.,  1857. 

Debates     on     the     Federal     Constitution,      Jonathan     Elliot; 
Washington,  1836. 


71 

Diplomatic-  Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution, 
edited  by  Jared  Sparks:  Boston,  1829  1836. 

Emigrants  to  Pennsylvania.  Collection  of  Thirty  Thousand 
names  of.  D.  I.  Rupp:  Harrisburg.  1-7(>. 

•ralist.  H.   C.  Lodge's  edition:   X.  Y.   1888. 
Financial  History  of  the  United  States.  Bolles,  N.  Y.  l^r> 
Franklin,  Benjamin,  Life,   by  James  Parton;  N.  Y.  1864. 

French     Protestant     Refugees.      M.    C.    Weiss;  N.      Y.     1854: 

(Translation.) 

French  Settlements  and  Settlers  in  Rhode  Island.  Potter: 
Providence.  17X9.  (Now  published  as  No.  5  of  R.  I. 
Historical  Tracts.) 

Forum.  The,  April.  1894. 

Gallatin.  Albert,  Life  by  H.  Adams,  Phil. 

Gallatin.  Albert.  Writings,  edited  by  H.  Adams:  Phil.  1879. 

("ijirtield,  James  A.,  Works  edited  by  B.  A.  Hinsdale:  Boston, 
L882. 

Genealogical  Notes  of  New  York  and  New  England  families, 
S.  V.  Talcott:  Albany,  1883. 

Hamilton.   Alexander.  Life  by  W.  G.  Sumner;  N.  Y.  1890. 

Hamilton.  Alexander.  Life  by  H.  C.  Lodge,  Boston;  and  N.  Y., 
1892. 

Hamilton.  Alexander.  Life  by  J.  T.  Morse;  Boston,  1876. 

Hamilton,  Alexandei-.  Works,  edited  by  J.  ("1.  Hamilton;  N.  Y. 
L851. 

Hamilton.  Alexander.  Works,  edited  by  H.  C.  Lodge,  N.  Y., 
L885. 

Hartford  Convention,  History  of.  Theo.  Dwight;  N.  Y., 
1833. 

Historical  Magazine;  Boston,  Morrisiana,  1857-1869. 

Huguenots  in  France    and  America,    H.    F.    Lee;  Cambridge, 

1-43. 

Huguenots  on  the  Hackensack,  Demarest;  New  Brunswick, 
X.  J.,  1886. 

Huguenot  Emigration  to  America,  C.  W.  Baird:  N.  Y.,  1885. 

Huguenot  Society  of  America,  Proceeding;  N.  Y.,  1889- 
1891 

Huguenot  Society  of  America,  Collections;  N.  Y.  1886. 

Huguenot  Society  of  South  Carolina,  Transactions;  Charles- 
ton, 1889-1894. 


72 

Illinois  in  the  Eighteenth  Century,  Edward  G.  Mason; 
Chicago,  1887.  (Fergus  Hist.  Tracts,  No.  12.  It. 
contains  three  papers  read  before  the  Chicago  Hist. 
Soc. ;  and  its  Parish  Records;  Old  Fort  Chartres; 
Kaskaskia  and  Col.  John  Todd's  Record  Book.) 

Illinois,  Pioneer  History  of;  Reynolds;  Belleville,  1852. 
Indiana  Gazetteer;  Indianapolis,  1849. 
Jay,  John,  Life  and  Writings  by  Wm.  Jay;  N.  Y.,  1833. 
Jay,  John,  Life  by  Pellew;  Boston,  1890. 

Jay,  John,  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers;  edited  by 
Henry  P.  Johnston;  N.  Y.,  1890. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  Life  by  Henry  S.  Randall;  N.  Y.,  1858. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  Writings;  Washington,  1853. 

Journal  of  the  Federal  Convention.  (Madison's,  edited  by 
E.  H.  Scott);  Chicago,  1893. 

Journals  of  Congress;  Washington,  1823. 
John  Hopkins  University  Studies;  Baltimore. 

Laurens,  John,  Army  Correspondence  of,  1777-1778;  (Bradford 
Club  Series  No.  7.);  N.  Y.  1867, 

Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  U.  S.,  George  E.  Howard; 
Extra  Vol.  IV.,  J.  H.  U.  Studies);  Baltimore,  1889. 

Louisiana,  History  of,  (The  American  Domination),  Charles 
Gayarre,  N.  Y.,  1886. 

Louisiana.  Views  of,  H.  M.  Brackenridge;  Pittsburg,  1814. 
Louisiana,  Hist,  Coll.  of;  N.  Y,,  1846-1853. 
Louisiana,  The  Story  of,  Maurice  Thompson;  Boston,  1888. 
Louisiana,  History  of,  Barbe  Marbois;  Phil.  1830. 

Loyalists  of  the  American  Revolution,  Lorenzo  Sabine; 
Boston,  1864. 

Magazine  of  American  History;  N.  Y.,  1877. 

Massachusetts  Bay,  History  of  from  1628  to  1774,  Thomas 
Hutchinson;  Boston,  1767-1774. 

Massachusetts  Hist.  Soc.  Collections;  Boston. 

Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Collections;  Lansing,  1877. 

Michigan.  Political  History  of,  James  V.  Campbell;  Detroit, 
1876. 

Michigan,  History  of,  C.  R.  Tuttle;  Detroit,  1874. 
Michigan,  The  Red  Book  of,  Charles  Lanman;  Detroit,  1871. 
Michigan     Biographies,      compiled     by     S.      D.      Bingham, 
Lansing,  1888. 


73 

Morris.  Gouverneur.  Life  and  Writings,  Jared  Sparks; 
Boston,  1832. 

Morris.  Gouverneur,  Diary  and  Letters,  edited  by  Anne 
Gary  Morris:  N.  Y.  1888. 

Morris.  Gouverneur.  Life,  by  Theodore  Roosevelt. 
Boston.  1892. 

My  Own  Times.  Reynolds:  -     -  1855. 

Narrative  and  Critical  History  of  America,  edited  by 
Justin  Winsor:  Boston,  18^. 

National  Magazine:  N.  Y..  1891. 

Nt>w  England.  History  of,  J.  G.  Palfrey:  Boston,  1858-1878. 

New  England  Hist,  and  Gen.  Register;  Boston.  1847. 

New  England,  Federalism.  Documents  relating  to,  edited 
by  Henry  Adams:  Boston,  1877. 

New  York.  Political  History  of,  Jabez  Hammond: 
Albany,  1842. 

New  York,  Memorial  History  of,  edited  by  J.  G.  Wilson: 
N.  Y.,  1892. 

New  York.  Documentary  History  of;  Albany,  1849. 

New   York.    Documents   relating    to  the   Colonial   History  of; 

Albany,  1856. 

New  Jersey  Archives:  Newark  1880. 
Niles'  Weekly  Register;  Baltimore,  1811. 

North  Carolina,  Sketches  of  Western,  C.  L.  Hunter; 
Raleigh,  1877. 

North  American  Review;  Vol.  CXXII. 

Notes  on  the  Early  Settlement  of  the  Northwest.  Jacob 
Burnett:  N.  Y.,  1847. 

Officers  of  the  Continental  Army  during  the  War  of  the 
Revolution;  Historical  Register  of.  compiled  by  P. 
B.  Heitman  of  the  War  Dept, :  Washington,  1893. 

Ohio,  Rufus  King:  Boston.  1888. 
Ohio,  Caleb  Atwater:  Cincinnati,  1838. 

Ohio.  The  State  of,  Sources  of  her  Strength.  (Western  Re- 
serve Hist,  and  Arch  Tracts,  No.  55.)  Chas.  Whit- 
tlesey;  Cleveland,  1881. 

Old  Northwest,  B.  A.  Hinsdale;  N.  Y.,  1888. 

Oxford,  Mass.,  History  of,  Daniels;  Oxford.  Mass.,  1892. 

Puritan,  The,  in  England.  Holland,  and  America,  Douglas 
Campbell;  N.  Y.  1892. 


74 

Randolph  Co.,  111.,  History  of;  Phil.  1883. 

Revere,  Col.  Paul,  Life  of.  E.  H.  Goss;  Boston,  1891. 

Revocation   of   the   Edict   of   Nantes,    Commemoration  of,  Bi 
Centenary  of;  N.  Y.  1886. 

Rhode  Island  Colonial  Records;  Providence.  1856. 

Slavery  in  Illinois.  Hist.  Sketch  of  the  Early  Movement 
for  Legalizing1,  Win.  H.  Brown;  Chicago,  1865. 

Slavery  and  Anti-Slavery,  Wm.  Goodell;  N.  Y. 

Slave  Power  in  America,  The  Rise  and  Fall  of,  Henry  Wil- 
son; N.  Y.,  1872. 

Slavery,  Views  on  American,  taken  a  century  ago;  Phil., 
1858.  (Prom  the  writings  of  Anthony  Benezet  and 
John  Wesley). 

South  Carolina  Hist.,  Collections;  N.  Y.,  1836. 
St.  Clair  Co.,  111.,  History  of;  Phil.,  1881. 
.St.  Clair  Papers,  edited  by  W.  H.  Smith;  Cincinnati,   1882. 

St.  Louis,  History  of  from  the  Earliest  Time.  J.  T.  Scharf ; 
Phil.,  1883. 

St.  Louis,  Annals  of  in  its  Early  Days,  Fred.    E.    Billon;    St. 

Louis,  1886. 
Supreme   Court   of    the  United   States,    The,    H.    L.    Carson; 

Phil.  1891. 
Tennessee,     History     of,  James   Phelan;  Boston     and   N.  Y., 

1888. 

Ulster  Hist.  Soc.  Collections;  Kingston,  1860. 
United  States.  History  of  the.  Geo.  Bancroft;  Boston.  1876. 
United  States,  History  of  the.  Richard  Hildreth;  N.  Y.  1879. 

United  States,  History  of  the.  .James  Schouler;  Washing- 
ton, 1889. 

Vincennes,  Colonial  History  of,  John  Law;  Vincennes,  1858. 
Virginia  Hist.  Soc.  Collections;  Richmond,  1882. 
Virginia,  Old  Churches  and  Families  of.  Mead;  Phil..  1878. 
Virginie,  Histoire  De  La,  Robt.  Beverly;  Amsterdam,  1777. 

View  of  the  Climate  and  Soil  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  C.  F.  Volney:  London,  1804. 

War  of  1812,  History  of,  C.  J.  Ingersoll;  Phil.;  1853, 

Washington,    George.     The    Writings     of,  edited   by     W.  C. 

Ford;  N.  Y!,  1891. 
Webster,  Daniel,  Great  Speeches  of,  edited  by  E.   P.  Whipple; 

Boston. 


.  The.  Robert  P.  Porter:  Chicago. 
Winning  of  the  West,  Theodore  Roosevelt;  N.  Y. 

\Yisconsin  Hist.  Soc.  Collections:  Madison,  1855. 


•»*-. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

'  Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


190* 


i 

LD21-100m-9,'48(B3998l6 


16197279 


11  AW  6  0 


YC  09826 


